An observation from a newbie

I had posted this a few days ago accidently in your other forum.

Anyhow, I am a very proud owner of a Buick Riviera Gran Sport. I have owned this car most of my life. Actually, I stumbled on the musclecars.com website after reading about it on different forum.

The last thing I would want to do while making my first posts here is to start a fight, :evillol: but if I let this one slide I would be compromising everything I stand for where common sense and freedom of expression is concerned. I have entered a few discussions where the "what makes it a musclecar" topic has come up. People who consider themselves qualified to create the guidelines of this classification often know very little about the cars they leave out. I have read many mistakes in some so called "musclecar" books where the Riviera and some others are concerned, and often times the featured car is not even completely correct. Some of the authors go as far as using the term "granD sportS".....I hate that! It's GRAN SPORT.

First off, I do not mean to offend the person or persons who compiled your list of "musclecars" on your musclecar.com home page, BUT where the Riviera is concerned, you fail to even mention that Buick even made a Gran Sport Riviera or Wildcat model.

The fact that you can classify a full size Impala SS as a musclecar and not a Riviera or Wildcat GS is way beyond my comprehension.

Let me start with some trivia: To the best of my knowlege, the first GS Riviera was made available in 1965, and the GRAN SPORT option included dual 4 barrel carburetion (360 HP and 465 ft lbs of torque is nothing to sneeze at), positraction (with a few different gear ratios available) 3:42 was standard in '66 and '67 on the Riv GS, quick ratio steering, stiffer suspension, GS ornamentation and whatever other option you wanted INCLUDING AIR CONDITIONING. I don't know of very many musclecars that could compete with the rest WITH THE A/C ON! Also, Pontiac and Chevy never even offered an automatic transmission with the dual speed torque converter that these cars have as standard equipment.

For that matter, the '70 RIV GS came with the stage 1 engine, 510 FT Lbs. of torque and very under rated at 370 HP. Many non-GS models even came with stage 1 heads from the factory for reasons unknown!

If that doesn't make a Musclecar but a full sized Impala does, then something is really wrong here.

Before I write a book, please let me point out one more fact.....the '65 Riv GS is not any bigger than a '65 GTO and weighs in nearly the same as a fully optioned GTO.

I parked my '67 Riv GS next to a '67 GTO and mine is only about 6" longer and weighs in at 4,400 LBS. I don't know what the GTO weighs, can't be much less, but I'd hardly consider a 4,400 lb car of that era a "boat" as people who don't even know a pre-'79 Riv is rear wheel drive! What's that Impala weigh anyway? I'll bet it's at least as much, but you call that a musclecar......because it's not a Buick.

I have some Popular Hot Rodding and car and Driver musclecar tests that I am willing to share here that clearly show the performance of these fine cars on their road tests and frankly 15 or 16 second 1/4 mile times on stock cars from that era with bias ply tires ain't too shabby for a luxury car affectionately called "THE BANKER'S HOT ROD". It really does go fast with class, those of us who own one know.

You also never mentioned the Wildcat GS.......this was also a musclecar.......some of these came from the factory with dualquads and a 4 speed........their lack of popularity makes them almost un-heard of. I don't know actual production numbers, but I do know that in '66 only 179 Riv GS models came with dual quads.

If someone can supply me with an email that I could send my scanned literature to be posted I will gladly send it so you can add the Riv GS to your list. The Riviera GS truly deserves to be on it, and those of us who own one should all agree. And in case you didn't notice, I only disputed the car I am truly knowlegable about. Just my :2cents:

Rivguy,
While I cetainly love the style and pinash of the mid-60s Rivvy, it's not on the list for a couple of reasons. Mainly, the nail-head is a slug. And fragile, as well. They were okay when first introduced in the early '50s. Actually, pretty much "leading edge". Small block Chevy and Pontiac V8 in '55 made ALL the Olds and Buicks of the day obsolete over night. The '59 Cad was the first real challenge to them from within GM.
Rivieras are VERY heavy cars. A '67 GTO with all the trimmings (including the "switch-pitch" TH400 you said wasn't available in Pontiacs), and the "full throttle cutout switch" for A/C, weighs in about 3,600 lbs. dry.
Please don't take this wrong. I LOVE the Riviera. Especially the '63-'65 models. But Rivvy belongs in the same category as Grand Prix and Toronado. it is a "personal luxury car", and a damn fine one, at that. Perhaps the nicest of the three GM offerings. But it is NOT a muscle car, and lucky to be considered a "performance" car.
I read all the reports of fast Buicks. Well, I've seen a couple. But only one that sticks out in my memory. That was T/A Performance's (Phoenix, AZ) Sport Wagon. It was going low 10s when I saw it 15 years ago. I spoke to them a couple weeks ago, and it is now in the high 8s. They claim it to be the fastest normally aspirated door slamming Buick (powered) in the world. If that's true, it's nowhere near the top of the heap, as there are multitudes of Chevys that go 7s in similar configuration. I saw no less than 7 door slammers in the 7s at the last TriPower Nats at Norwalk (ALL Injun engines). There was even one '69 Grand Prix, all steel, and IRON heads, going 8.0@180! That one DID have a nitrous unit on it... It was called "Purple Prix". I have some pics.
You know, of course, '69-'72 GPs are on the same chassis as Rivvy, right? It's known as a "G-Body". Monte Carlo shared the platform, as well. The A-Bodies (Skylark, Tempest, Chevelle, Cutlass) have a 6" shorter wheelbase and are at least 500 lbs. lighter than the G-Bodies.
They get on me all the time for loving the Pontiac. I understand your plight. But realism and experience must play a role here. The Buick is one of the nicer cars out there. But fast? Not really, at least in any volume. People don't race dynos or magazine tests. They race cars. I promote the Pontiac to keep the history alive, and to break paradyms. Pontiac's racing history is as glorious as any manufacturer in the world, and better than most. If Buick had a racing history of any kind, I would promote that, too. The handful of fast cars they built simply aren't enough to consider.
PAX

Rivguy,
But realism and experience must play a role here.

Pax, the Nailhead is no slug........and certainly not a fragile engine. The Nailhead is one of the most durable engines ever made. And as for Rivs being heavy, try comparing apples to apples. You talk as if magazines favored these cars, when the fact is they do not. Magazine articles mean nothing, no more than a musclecar web page does. Actual facts do.

"But Rivvy belongs in the same category as Grand Prix and Toronado. it is a "personal luxury car"

No.......Toronado is FWD, Grand Prix is not a luxury car.......they are not the same category.

"You know, of course, '69-'72 GPs are on the same chassis as Rivvy, right? It's known as a "G-Body"."

No......the Rivvy is an "E" body.....you are wrong again.

"A '67 GTO with all the trimmings (including the "switch-pitch" TH400 you said wasn't available in Pontiacs), and the "full throttle cutout switch" for A/C,"

You don't even know what a switch pitch converter is.......and you are deciding what makes a musclecar. That's sad.

" But realism and experience must play a role here. "
I'll second that one.

Your statements prove you are mis-guided. :smokin:

Pax, the Nailhead is no slug........and certainly not a fragile engine. The Nailhead is one of the most durable engines ever made. And as for Rivs being heavy, try comparing apples to apples. You talk as if magazines favored these cars, when the fact is they do not. Magazine articles mean nothing, no more than a musclecar web page does. Actual facts do.
Amen. The nailheads are indestructable. As far as them being slow, they got that reputation because of the transmission they used (a 1-speed) Also, ever heard of TV Tommy Ivo? http://www.buicks.net/misc/images/Ivo_Cover.jpg

The nailhead engines especially the 64-66 versions are anything but fragile. they use a forged steel crankshaft with fully grooved bearing journals, forged rods and a block that is extremely strong. the down fall for a nailhead is the cylinder heads. they have great port velocity but not a lot of cfm potential. thats why they make so much bottom end torque but not much high rpm hp. a 3 or 4 speed manual tranny 65 or 66 GS is a very fast car on the street, but they dont do as well in the 1/4 mile. I know i own a 65 GS 3 speed and a 65 GS auto and a 66 GS convertible 3 speed.

Bob Gibbs

Well, again, I must have halucinated all those dropped valves and burnt rings. When I first started in the business, the nail-head was in it's "rebuilder prime". That is, they were approaching 8-10 years in service, and were beginning to fall out (the mid-60s stuff, not the earlier ones).
I did NOT define "muscle car", the guys that sold the first ones did.
Grand Prix IS a "personal luxury car" according to Pontiac literature from the '62 model (the first one, a year ahead of Rivvy). Okay, it may be an "E-body" in the late '60s. But it's still the same, as all the suspension parts from a Rivvy fit a GP, '69-'72. Toronado is FWD, true enough. It is still a "personal luxury car".
You guys miss the point. Buicks are wonderful cars. I said that before, and I like them. ESPECIALLY the early Rivs. But I don't see them anywhere near the level of performance the other GM divisons had at the same time. Saying a Rivvy could run with a Catalina (in '63) is like saying the same '63 Cat could beat up on a '67 GTX with a Hemi... Emotional and not realistic.

I love olds nailheads. Torque Monster. They were cheap when I was in my late teens. Didn't nailheads float valves at high RPM's for the same reason they are called "nailheads"? As far as the "Whats a muscle car?" question I think its what you think as the owner. One of the old car value guides lists late 70's (78-79)GM intermediates as muscle cars. I know its an oversized engine for the chassis. What about this? My 72 Cutlass started out life as an air conditioned 350 automatic. Muscle car era, but really not a muscle car. Now it is a pre 71 455 bench seat 4 speed with no air, manual steering, and manual brakes. The very definition of a Muscle car. The question is can you build a Muscle car?

I've had a Nailhead in one form or another for the last 25 years.........and never once have I heard of one "burning" rings or "dropping valves". I would suppose if you ran one through the mountains towing a 2 ton trailer with 87 octane crap gas in it you could overheat it and damage a piston.

When my dad had my car before me he drove it for over 60 miles with no oil pressure registering on the guage........the cam got destroyed but you know that motor never spun a bearing? After adding 4 qts. of oil I drove it that way for a year afterwards and could still smoke a Camaro on the way to school! After I rebuilt it I ran it for over 200,000 miles and beat the crap out of it and the day I pulled it from the car it was still running great although it was burning oil.

Nailheads are called that for a reason.......at high RPM's they don't breathe as well as the others do. I tend to disagree with that, the daul quads add up to over 1200CFM and those motors love it. I was amazed at how much more top end power I gained when I installed them. They even make an aftermarket manifold that fits 2 quardajets.......if the Nailhead couldn't breathe, I don't think they would make that. Although there's nothing up there, I've revved mine to the point the valves floated at just over 6,500 RPM very many times so if they drop valves I it's news to me. I have also never spun a bearing. Nailheads wear valve guides if the oil passages in the heads clog up with sludge from lack of oil changes, that's the only weakness I could ever find on mine. Any motor will die if you don't change the oil.

Mrpbody, you should just name this website PONTIACmusclecars.com.........you live in a glass house and can only see outside when there's a Pontiac there. Although I only race upon opportunity, the only GTO I've ever seen was in my rear view mirror, but my car is stock so I can only presume what I was racing was stock also. :smokin:

Actually, the "nail head" nickname comes form the shape of the valve. It looks like BIG nail. Having rebuilt many of them (not in the last 25 years), I recall some very unique features.
If you read all the other posts I answer, you will find, I can take a very objective point of view regarding how to accomplish a certain task, with a muscle car. You will also realize, I have respect for ALL of them. When you start talking about cars you think should be considered a muscle car, and then manipulate the definition to make your beloved model "fit in", I stand up for posterity. My written definition of "muscle car" is NOT MY DEFINITION. It is the accepted definition among those of us that have been involved with them since you could still buy them new.
I like GTO because it set the standard by which all others are measured. Not necessarily performance numbers, but what the car should embody. While they may have made a few hundred Buicks that could run low 14s/high 13s in stock form, they made tens of thousands of Chevelles and GTOs that could do it. Same can be said of the Mopes, though the quality of their cars was already suffering by the late '60s.
As for beating or getting beat by a Pontiac? Well, just like anything else, there's always someone out there faster or bigger or tougher, or whatever, than you (or me) at any given time. But again, reality must check in. How many 7 second Buicks are there with Buick engines? None I ever heard of. T/A Performance claims to be the fastest "true" Buick in the country, in the high 8s. There are no less than 5 8 second Pontiacs right here in the Richmond area. And at least one in the 7s. Door slammers on gasoline!

I think the term "nailhead" comes from the fact that the valves are almost staight up and down in the head instead of on an angle like most V-8's.

It's not my definition...and I've been driving for 40 years...

Pbody......I didn't mean to slam you so hard........but regardless of who is making the picks of what's a musclecar and what's not......many of these guys don't know enough about the cars they are disqualifying to say one way or the other. When I read webpages like the one here that tries to say what is and what isn't it simply makes me laugh. :rofl:

I have just as many people at car shows walk up to my Riv and tell me what a great musclecar I have..........including show judges.....and when I win something, there's always a few sore losers who complain that it isn't and should not have been in the musclecar class in the first place. In the stock class there are those who say it doesn't belong there either. Once a guy with a Pontiac 2+2 something walked over to me one day and said his is and mine isn't. If you're going to disqualify my car which is prolly lighter than that car or the Impala SS that angers me. It seems like you guys bend the "rules" to suit yourselves. One full sized car is too heavy but another one is not. Then they use a heavily optioned car in comparison to a stripped down one to manipulate the weights.

Just because the GTO may be the first car referred to as "musclecar" it should not set the standard for everything else! Where that Impala SS is concerned, there is not one feature it has that a Riv GS does not have. And the Riv GS has a more powerful motor to start with.....isn't that where the muscle comes from in the fist place.......the motor? Don't talk horsepower, it's the torque that gets you moving and the Buicks have always had the most torque. Just for comparison, the '70 455 has 510 ft lbs........the 426 HEMI was either 5 more or 5 less. If that's not muscle, then please excuse me while I puke. :banghead:

as far as torque or hp..it's the guy/car that crosses the finish line first...1/4 mile times are not in favor of great riding...gas guzzling...heavy cars

I have never, nor will I ever, consider an Impala OR a Catalina (the base model of the 2+2), a muscle car. They are full-size performance cars. Same is true of the Furys, 500 XLs, Marauaders, Polaras, Ambassadors, Wildcats, Starfires, etc...
Again, we come back to the "my opinion" thing. The "definition" has nothing to do with "opinion", BY DEFINITION. If I weren't quoting from a book written by the people that were actually THERE, and saying "In my opinion", I would agree to the argument. John Z. DeLorean and Jim Wangers defined what a "muscle car" is/was. That is a matter of historic fact, not an opinion. Even Hot Rod Magazine, Popular Hot Rodding, Car Craft Magazine, Muscle Car Magazine, Motor Trend , and the list can go on forever, credit GTO with being the "first" muscle car. I don't usually site magazine articles for "facts", but my dad always taught me, "5,000 Frenchmen can't be wrong!" That means, if the majority in a given subject, all say the same thing, it's probably true...
The valves for the "nail head" have a very large head on them, resembling a large finishing nail. The valve angle is VERY steep, as pointed out. That led to the funny looking pistons with the big ol' knot on top. As we have learned over the years, the steep valve angle does not lend itself well to high performance flow characteristics. Chevy builders go to great lengths to "roll" the head over to decrease the valve angle (the primary purpose of "angle milling").
It is popular in today's society, to rewrite history to make it more favorable to a certain side of an argument, or to make it more politically palatable. Let the government and political parties muddy the water with self-serving BS. As technicians, we like to keep our eye on the ball. No matter how hard you try, you can't change the past. There can only be one "first". Why is it such a big deal to you, that GTO is that one?

The valves for the "nail head" have a very large head on them, resembling a large finishing nail.
I think you mean the head of the valve is very small, relative to the stem, making them look like a common nail.
Finishing nails have just about no head at all, and look nothing like valves.

But MrPbody is correct. The Riv GS is not a muscle car, based on the popular definition, but there is no reason why anyone should take offense to this point.
It makes no difference what you call it, the GS is a nice car.

I have a mildly modified '68 T-bird with a 429. Dispite the fact that it looks, sounds and goes like a muscle car it just is NOT a muscle car.
It is a personal luxury car, like the GS. Personally, I dont care what its called. I still like it.

I am thankful the personal luxury cars are not muscle cars. If they were, they would have the high muscle car price and would not be affordable!!

Because they are wrong when declaring the 64 gto the first muscle car...I just got jumped by a mopar lover who submitted the 55 chrysler 300 as the first muscle car...300 meant...300 h.p. What American car in 55 even came close to that ??? And every year after....Chrysler made the hemis and more HP afterwards. Did the gto become the first musscle car because it had a 4 speed option??? It didn't have a hp per cube.oh..and the 327 had options with HP as high as 375 hP....with weight and HP...aren't we talkin tiger stompin here...

By definition does anyone feel that any car produced after 1974 is a musclecar?

I see your point Terzmo. I think what MrPbody means is what has been accepted as such over time. When the term musclecar was first coined, sometime after the fifties cars that you mention, it had generally been accepting in automotive circles that the GTO was the first packaged musclecar. Yes there were fast cars produced before that time, but that doesn't make it a musclecar. I think I can speak for majority in stating that the Musclecar era ran from 64-74. I to think that over time people have changed the rules and have accepted this car or that car as a musclecar, and even cars of late. IMO I can't see calling an 03 Cobra a musclecar, that is not to say that it isn't a performance car though. It can run circles around any "musclecar". It's just as simple as that, but people want to call there own cars musclecars I guess.

My opinion is the last good looking chevy was 72...Mustang was decent til 73 then in 74 shrunk to a mutant mustang....challengers and barracuda's lasted til 74..after that, style/performance: shit the Bed. Chargers and satellites went wacky in 71...Just MY opinion. Corvette lost all chrome in 74

No musle after 71...de-tuned engines...8.5 to 1 compression....non existent cams...smaller carbs...added pollutant crap....

One of the earlier points made was that an SS could havea 6cyl engine..well, in 64...a GTO was a Tempest/lemans with the GTO option. Same in 65 until they came up with the 242 vin number designating it strickly as a gto. Tempest/Lemans also had 6 bangers. The only way to check on a 64 or early 65 was to see if A5 was on the fenderwall tag...that was the GTO option. The 55 Chrysler 300...had no motor options....per the local mopar guru..Big motor....base car.....done 9 years earlier...

Love those 300's! The early 300 was such an awesome car. It was completely overlooked by many. I really love the 300F convertible with the 413 ram horns, WOW. Collector's are just now starting to realize what these cars were. Did you see that one on Barrett Jackson go for an enormous amount of money? It was good to see in the sea of Tri-5 Chevies that were on the block. Long live the 300, check out the new 300 SRT-8. I think Chrysler should engineer that car as a coupe, and make a convertible. I think they missed the mark by only offering a 4-door version, same with the charger

No matter how hard you try, you can't change the past. There can only be one "first". Why is it such a big deal to you, that GTO is that one?

I'm not trying to change the past.......the past speaks for itself. I don't take offense just because certain cars are not included in a classification that I really could not care less about being a part of.........what irks me is that people who consider themselves to be such "experts" :rolleyes: about what fits the designation really don't know all the facts. All cars form the late 50'5 to the early '70's are a part of me, and when someone starts shooting off their mouth with only some of the facts I'd be a wimp not to speak up.

If you want to bring magazine articles into the discussion, I have read a few that call just about anything on wheels a musclecar if they think it will sell more copies. The fact is, many authors are just writers being paid to do a job and are in the business of selling magazines.......they only print what won't get them fired. Print one that proclaims the most popular cars and you'll sell a bunch. Print one that proclaims the underdogs and you'll go bankrupt. Every now and then an author has been known to go against the grain and print an unpopular opinion, then he learns his lesson and then never does it again.

Regardless of what the opinion may be of some of these authors, and some people, I don't consider the GTO to be the first musclecar........neither do many other people.......that's all there is to it........that's my OPINION and I'm sticking to that. I don't own a magazine company or a website where I can impose my opinions on everyone else, so I have to settle for just stirring the pot once in a while when I'm able to. :evillol:

There have been many other performance vehicles produced over the years that without having them as competition, the highly coveted GTO would never have been built in the first place. If you're going to base this classification on big engines in light cars, then OK........

..........but to the best of my knowlege Dodge began putting big engines in light cars long before the first GTO was even on the drawing board. No reason to call something a "musclecar" if there was nothing else to start the competition in the first place now is there? :smokin:

Point taken, by the way I consider your car a musclecar since all Riv GS cars came with hi-po motors. IMO I consider an SS 454 Monte Carlo one too, as well as the Grand Prix SSJ. -I can hear the replies

my dad always taught me, "5,000 Frenchmen can't be wrong!" That means, if the majority in a given subject, all say the same thing, it's probably true...
The valves for the "nail head" have a very large head on them, resembling a large finishing nail. The valve angle is VERY steep, as pointed out. That led to the funny looking pistons with the big ol' knot on top. As we have learned over the years, the steep valve angle does not lend itself well to high performance flow characteristics. Chevy builders go to great lengths to "roll" the head over to decrease the valve angle (the primary purpose of "angle milling").


Actually, you are wrong again Mr. Pbody........the reason it's called a Nailhead is because the valves have smaller heads in comparison to other engines, not larger ones. The valve angle in relation to the cylinder heads have nothing to do with the shape of the piston in a Nailhead.

The combustion chambers do have a hemispherical design, and the "big 'ol knot" as you call it on the piston top is there to increase the compression, and it is notched to provide clearance between the valve heads and the top of the pistons just as the pistons on other brands are also notched to provide clearance. I don't build race motors, so I won't comment about steep valve angles and flow characteristics.......and a Buick motor is a totally different animal than a chevy.

The valves in my Nailhead are 1-1/2" for the exhaust and 1-7/8" for the intake, not exactly teeny weeny but smaller in comparison to the 430/455 which are 1-5/8" exhaust and 2" intake.......stage 1 heads are even slightly larger than that. The extra 1/8" helps make for a little more power in the 430/455's but the Nailhead still makes more torque at the lower RPM's than the 430/455 can. And the 430/455's do not have forged cranks and rods like the Nailheads do.........I'll run the Nailhead. :smokin:

And tell your dad 5,000 Frenchman can be wrong, especially when they are ignorant to all of the facts. When Hemmings and all the rest of them start printing objectively and stop printing whatever it takes to sell magazines, perhaps then I will read them. :loser:

Rivg, was not refering to the diameter. Sorry, I should have been more succinct. I meant the large mass of the valve head. The valve is shaped somewhat like a Hershey's Kiss, with a long stem., not unlike the current titanium valves being used in modern high rev race engines. The chamber is shaped like a bath tub, not a hemi. Believe me, I built many of them, though it's been over 20 years since one has found it's way into my shop. They're getting few and far between out there.
Comparing the 430/455 to the Nailhead is apples-to-donuts. FAR more efficient and just as durable, the later engines are quite good.
As a Pontiac guy, I've been forced to use cast cranks for many years. They are excellent. As with the Pontiac, the weak point in the Buick is NOT the cast crank. The Buick cranks were made by the same methods (nodular iron) as the Pontiacs. And again, as with the Pontiac, the Buick's weak point is the block, itself. The 455 block is one of the lighter blocks out there, displacing such a large amount. The price paid for the weight savings, is the lack of rigidity. 455s are known for wiping cam bearings if overheated. I've seen maybe 20 with this over the years. It may be the material of the bearing, but I think it more the flexing and expansion/contraction issues found with all "thin wall" castings. The upside is, the massive torque the Buick is capable of, while weighing in about the same as a small block Chevy. This can make for a very fun car, that can actually go around some corners. The GSs were very good when equipped with the factory handling package.
Nope, not ignorant here. You name an American V8 engine made between 1950 and 2000, and I've built at least one of them... Hundreds of some!
PAX

The chamber is shaped like a bath tub, not a hemi.

And again, as with the Pontiac, the Buick's weak point is the block, itself. PAX

Nailheads used the same shape combustion chamber for many years. When I described it as being of hemispherical design, that description comes directly from my factory Buick service manual......I guess the engineers over at GM don't know what they're talking about.

As for Buick blocks being weak, you have the right to voice your opinion......I would never run a 430/455 in mine because of their poorly designed oiling system.... making the oil pump an integral part of the timing cover IMO was a bad idea.....and #7 and #8 rod bearings are the last ones to get the oil. Their tendency toward spun bearings and cracked heads, primarily around the combustion chamber area are enough to keep me away. If you never overheat one and maintain it well they last a long time. And there are aftermarket fixes for those design flaws, but no thanks.

If I was concerned about being the fastest, I'd run the 455.......but I'm more concerned with reliability, so I run the 425 Nailhead. ...........the Nailhead was one of the most durable engines ever made, and as any Nailhead racer/builder will tell you that block is very well designed and far from being weak. There's a lot more to a motor than the size of the valves. :smokin:

Incidently, the reason the valves in a Nailhead are sticking up 90 degress vertical is because in order for them to fit in place of the straight 8 they had to be narrow......there was no way to do that without designing it that way. :2cents:

Oh and I forgot.......for those who say a Nailhead can't run?........back in the late 50's Buick engineers at the Buick proving grounds in Flint experimented with a supercharged Nailhead. I can find the article if I need to........it produced over 700 HP, I forgot the torque. :evillol:

Buicks foremost concern with their product was reliability, so they ran it wide open on the dyno for a couple days straight until it blew up.......that was the only Nailhead crank I ever saw that was broken in half. Needless to say the idiots scrapped the idea.......like the consumer would drive that fast for days in a row :rolleyes: I just wonder what the "experts" opinion would be about who made the first musclecar had this motor made it into production? :naughty:

After repairing a number of 3.8s due to the oiling system, I would have to agree about the oil pump in the timing cover. The late model 3800s have a crescent pump driven off the crank, making the 3800 one of the best engines in a modern car. I like the newer head designs, too.
We could banter all week, about what factory engineers tried and didn't produce. I knew a man with a '49 Merc with a Jensen blower on it from the factory. He was an instructor at AAI in the early '70s.
The cover of Hot Rod, March,, 1970, showed the most powerful engine of the era, that GM never produced. 427 CID Pontiac, OHC with true hemispherical chambers. Too bad. Could have kept GM in the Top Fuel hunt for a few more years...
I never read the factory description for the nailhead. I only saw the engines. The chamber is definitely not a hemi. It is, however, fully machined. This is a good thing, keeping chamber volume very accurate and the surface finish allows for better flame propegation. Pontiac was the only other GM division to do this. The '55-'67 Pontiac chambers are remarkably similar to the nailhead. The valve angle is the big difference between them. Interesting comment about the design rationale for the valve angle. The same kind of "requirement" made the Pontiac exhaust port so poorly implemented.

After repairing a number of 3.8s due to the oiling system, I would have to agree about the oil pump in the timing cover. .

Hey, at least we agree on one thing :iceslolan

You should have been here yesterday! There was one of the rarest of the rare, Buicks here. It's a '69 GS Stage 1 with the 400. Beautiful car! I took some pics, but can't download them yet. We're talking about rebuilding the engine, but I think it's too nice to take apart at this time. It runs well, but he has to mix fuel (too much comperssion).
It's the light shade of metallic blue, with a black interior.
You take me all wrong! I don't dislike Buicks at all. As a matter of fact, I always liked them. They were just never around in any volume, to take seriously. And my experience with the engines has been extensive.
We did all the machine work for a 340 about three months ago. Comp's cams work well in them too! We got a new timing coover from a late '70s 3.8 to cure the problem with the oil pump. Pioneer still offers them, and they fit some of the V8s.

You take me all wrong! I don't dislike Buicks at all. As a matter of fact, I always liked them. .

I never thought that.......it just irks me a lot when a lack of popularity of certain makes of cars creates ignorance. It's almost like there's an unwritten rule somewhere that says if nobody knows anything about a particular car then it doesn't count.......or it can't be too good or else there would be more of them around. I hate that! :banghead:

Rivguy,
When reading another publication the other night, I saw they made just over 600 '70 GS Stage 1 cars. About 400 of them were the GSX version. Compare that to over 6,000 '70 GTOs with Ram Air, or the 10K or so LS-6 Chevelles.
It isn't a matter of ignorance. It's a matter of realism. The Stage 1 engines made good power. Unfortunately, to get significantly MORE power from them, a TON of modifications are called for. In SoCal in the early '70s, if you had a stocker, you didn't bother to come out. Your doors would be dust in a heartbeat (no pun intended).
But on the subject of volume, the masses speak with their money, when it comes to cars. The Chevelle was popular for many obvious reasons, price-to-performance being the main one. GTO was popular due to the marketing and popularity of it being "the first". (I know, you don't agree) But until '70, GTO outsold ALL other muscle cars by at least 2 to 1 (including SS396). 5,000 Frenchmen can't be wrong! Perhaps, if GS had a less "stodgy" dash and other apponitments, it would have been more popular. I have the pics of that '69, and the dash looks like something out of Grandad's era. Like the 442 of the same era, they should have redone the dash to make it look more sporty. Pontiac did the opposite. They made the LeMans and Tempest dashes look like the GTO, which actually sold many more cars than they may have.
The primary ingredient for a GTO buyer is someone that isn't interested in "Hey! Look at me!". They're much more interested in what you see when in the driver's seat AND what happens when you hit the "loud" pedal. This has long been a fundemental misunderstanding of the GTO "sub-culture". The new GTO fits right in to the pattern.

It isn't a matter of ignorance. It's a matter of realism. The Stage 1 engines made good power. Unfortunately, to get significantly MORE power from them, a TON of modifications are called for. .

I have never built a race motor, so I will not attempt to comment on something I know little about. However, I do know a little about Buick engines and I will say this- Any motor can be built to make more power......a motor is nothing different than a pump......the more you suck in, the more goes out. It doesn't matter if it's a Chevy, Ford, Dodge, AMC, Buick or whatever.

Referring to a '70 Buick 455 stage 1.....when a motor comes stock out of the box under-rated at 510 ft. lbs of torque and over 380 HP.........that's nothing to sneeze at. Just re-curving the distributor and filling up with high test on these motors was enough to make a huge seat of the pants improvement. I don't know what "tons" of mods you are talking about, but I don't see too many really fast cars that don't need extensive mods done to them. I will agree that the Buick 455 oiling system had it's shortfalls, mostly due to the large mains, but the earlier Nailheads with their smaller valves and forged rods and crank were nearly indestructable. And I don't consider installing a larger diameter oil pick up tube and grooved bearings on a 455 "tons of modifications". As you stated, their lack of popularity makes them almost unheard of. With the latest introduction of some new HI-perf parts for these motors, the guys with a wad of cash to spend will be surprising a lot of people who think like you do.

The fact is good Buick parts can't be bought at Jegs or Wal Mart. The money I have into my stock Nailhead would have built 2 good Chevys. That's why it's rare to find anything but a small block in almost everything you see. I can get a blower for my 425, but for what it would cost me just for that I could do a lot more to make something different go faster. I'm conservative in the "go" department, so don't expect to see anything but a stock motor in my car. If I wanted to prove a point, I'd lay out some dough and buy one of Jim Burek's 573 Buick strokers.........but that would only prove that my car is faster than yours, and with gas costing $2 a gallon I'm glad that's not important to me. :smokin:

http://members.aol.com/browrob549/emo/signs042.gif
http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/RTFI.gif
MagicRat, MrPbody - you guys understand the definitions of muscle car relative to the era. What people wish to retrospectively think is a muscle car 40 years later is quite another thing. To project today's values to yesterday is just wrong and quite stupid.

Personal luxury cars were a whole 'nother class that was born around the same time with the 63 Riviera leading the pack. I will today call a 67 427 Galaxie a muscle car knowing full well that it wasn't so classed in the 60s.

Point being that ain't so bad in general conversation but I lived through the era and was involved in the publushing industry where the definitions and phrases were born so I do know what was what for absolute accuracy.

Personal luxury cars were Rivieras, Cougars, (Cougars were the size that they could be personal luxury and pony car depending on the build list) Gran Sports, Toronados etc, loaded with stuff like power windows, seats, antennas etc., better stereos and more sound deadening plus more. An adequate engine- not a stump puller- and an auto trans were part of it.

Pony cars is another term. A pony car can be a muscle car, though all are not, and a muscle car isn't always a pony car. A 327 in a standard suspensioned Camaro in 67 was a regular pony car. Put in performance suspension, tires, hi-performance tranny, plus a 396 etc. and it's a muscle car. You can't thow other cars with long hoods and short rear decks into the pony car class by looks alone no matter how powerful of engines they have.

Today people call all of these big-engine cars "muscle cars" incorrectly. Just because my 58 Biscayne with a 348 had lots of power is wasn't a 1958 muscle car. Even with a 409 it wouldn't have been. It lacked the HD suspension, tires, performance tranny and all that make a muscle car. It understeered and wallowed like a turd in turns! I've got a 1950 Packard with a 288CID flathead straight 8. Was the model with the 356CID straight 8 a muscle car because it had a bigger mill? Hell no!
http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Rulz.gif

I write historical combat aviation literature. WW 2 began September 1, 1939 when the Wehrmacht invaded Poland. There is no dispute or conjecture as to when it happened. People that were there could tell you if you didn't know and it's printed in tons of books.

The same is true for muscle cars when the optioned-out Tempest became the GTO in 1964. By the following year options from manufacturers' catalogs that made muscle cars what they were came together only in that one model. You could build a clone, sort of, from a dealer parts list but it wasn't the official car with the factory build list to back it up. Some options were not available on the similar base model. 3 deuces, for example, was not an option on 326 Lemans cars, only on 389 GTOs.

The people that were around back in the day know what muscle cars were and were not, plus it's been printed in tons of publications since the time.
http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Demonstration.gif

Mercury Marauders, Impalas, Galaxies, Polaras and other similar big cars never were muscle cars no matter how big of a mill was stuck into them.

Muscular yes but not muscle cars. So anyone that wants to continue with the flawed thinking lumping cars with more HP into the muscle car category- http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Whatever.gif

I lived through the era and was involved in the publushing industry where the definitions and phrases were born so I do know what was what for absolute accuracy.


Just what we needed.........another propaganda specialist who thinks just because something is printed in a sleezy magazine somewhere it's a fact http://www.v8buick.com/images/smilies/moon.gif

Cougar started in 67 and definitely NOT a luxury car...a poor attempt at making a merc a bit bigger than a mustang. I don't know that if in 67 an engine bigger than a 302 was offered...and if you EVER rode in one...you KNEW it was NOT a luxury car...and about this turd in a turn thing...what full size American car with over 300 hp COULD perform in a turn.....they were just straight away rockets..you want turns...see cobra....and almost...the vettes. What set the Chrysler 300 apart from EVERYTHING in 55 was the horse power....no one else had it......AND ..did you realize that most mags/rags in the 50/60's were owned or sponsored by separate dealers....so a mag that was pro gto most likely was controlled by the pontiac/gm moguls. Ford and chrysler included. They were no Angels also.

The '55 300 was an awesome car with lots of power! It set lots of records and was very cool in all respects. If there WAS a before-the-era muscle car it is definitely in there as one. Problem is that it was a full size car and in the late 60s no one considered the big cars as muscle cars. Yet we kind of do today. This would be 427 Galaxies, Marauders, Imaplas etc. The 300 didn't start a trend that followed the next year like the old GTO did. That's why we don't call it the 1st muscle car since it wasn't the beginning of a solid line of similar cars. This doesn't take away in any bit to its image as a powerhouse of a car.

I'm saying since I was involved in the industry in the times it was very defined as to what was what wasn't in automotive niche marketing. EVERY publication put the cars of the time into their categories because the factories were marketing them that way. When Mercury press releases touted the Cougar as a personal luxury car aimed at that market though most road testers found its short comings in ride and other details and said so in publications. It was half a pony car and half personal luxury- not either one well.

The verbal terminology in various historical periods is usually well documented by media publications of the times. To discount all the media sources of the times is just blindly prejudiced. What sources that you don't consider sleazy would you believe? I mean I'd class a Gran Sport as a muscle car retrospectively by today's standards. It just wasn't classed as such by anyone in the 60s.
http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Dunno.gif

the 55 chrysler 300 was just the jumping point for mopar...it continually improved hp year after year from the 331 hemi to the big boy...426....included in the string was the max wedge cars also. What improvements did gto have except offer a 3 duece setup, (that never worked very well) and the first engine choice was 67 when you could have a 389 or 400...Never was more than two options(engine size) for a gto....and only one from 64 to 66...what a great basisi for "muscle car" award...lol

do u have proof that the Tripower didnt work well?. What about RA? and is there a problem without any change.. who cares if the gto didnt have more than 2 engine options for some years? i mean comon do u think it matters after u look at the number of GTOs sold? i dont think so.

The Chrysler 300 had only 1 engine so don't discount the GTO too quickly as poor on options. A lot of the muscle cars didn't have a huge array of engine options. Besides no one ever said the GTO was the best muscle car, simply the one that most folks refer to as the first of the breed that began others following the next year.

Tri-power was tried and true. There were tri-power intakes way back in the late 1940s for Ford flathead V-8s that worked with the Strombergs fine.

yes i forgot about those.. and they also used them on corvettes

RivGS your car is every bit a musclecar as a GTO! It was made between 64-74, and was a special model designation with a big engine, and class and ride to boot!

I've been on the sidelines for a while, watching this unfold. Tersmo, before you start talking about GTOs, you should probably learn more about them. There was no 389 in '67. The 400 was the only GTO engine, available in at least four levels of tune. The 295 horse 2-bbl. "delete" option, the 335 horse, 350 horse and 360 horse ("Ram Air"). TriPower went away in '67, never to be offered again. Between Corvette and fuel, multiple carbs were banned by the front office, EXCEPT in Corvette.
Pontiac also offered fuel injection in '57 and '58. They learned by '59, the 4-bbl. setup was both more efficient and more powerful. The TriPower option made the most for a "stocker". The Super Duty program (started in '56 as the "Trophy" series) offered dual quads in '60-'63. Ramchargers didn't start winning until GM dropped out in mid-'63. Even then, some of the "independent" Pontiacs, like Arnie Beswick, won several national meets in Super Stock and A/FX. '64 was the year Dodge came into their own with the 426 Hemi. Any comparisons to the early hemis is apples-to-donuts. They share NOTHING except a similar combustion chamber. The wedges are certainly good engines, but no better than any of the other "big block" engines of other companies. We build a fair number of 440s (many modified to be much bigger). We like them.
If the '56 Chrysler was so fast and so good, why did Pontiac win everything at Daytona in january of '57? And '58, and '58 and '60... Through '63! And NOT with muscle cars, just big ol' boats (Catalina). If Hemi and L-88 are "legendary" engines, 421 SD ranks right up there with them!

Lastly, let's see... An experienced writer from the era, and a certified master with 25 years experience (and a published technical writer, legally recognized expert) say to pay attention to history for what it is, not for what you think it should be, yet you continue to argue. Name-calling and personal insults are the tactics of someone in a corner with no real ammo to illustrate their position.
It's okay. You can believe your Buick is better than a Pontiac. You can believe your Buick was/is the best. That's why we have so many options. It takes all kinds to make a world! But, always remember, you're no more autoomatically right, than we are automatically wrong, just because we disagree. From one side, a very strong case has been made. From the other, only opinions of individuals without credibility, claim their "favorite".

You had better check on that 67 issue....factory choice of 389 or 400...NOT exclusively a 400 only year...I know GTO's...had them...raced them...beat them........been involved with muscle cars for almost 40 years....and it was mopar that forced ford(thunderbolt,early 60's) and chevy to improve at the drags because the wedge cars were kickin their butts...and I don't own a buick....67 Coronet..bored and stroked to 493 cubes..........here kitty kitty...

Terzmo, if you have ever seen a '67 coded 389 block, I'd like to see some pics. '66 was the last year for 389. The early '67 400s had the 20 degree heads on 2-bbl. engines (similar to 389, but not the same). ALL the others had 14 degree heads with big valves and screw-in studs.
If you raced GTOs, you KNOW it takes a stroked MOPAR to beat a stocker... Show up at Dinwiddie in May, and you'll go home with your feelings hurt. MANY 8 second door cars, and a few 7 second. Some 6 second dragsters on alcohol. No Chevy engines allowed. How many big Dodges make more than 640 HP on 93 octane and flat tappet cams? I have three customers with 461 CID Pontiacs doing it. And I'm just one of the "small fish" in the Pontiac "pond". Butler has a 505 CID version making 2880 HP, turbo-charged on alcohol. Sounds a lot like Hemi country to me... Bernie never got more than 2,200 from his "Max Wedge" (499 CID, blown alcohol, '67 GTX, runs 4.90s in the 1/8). He went to the Hemi. 4.40s now.
If you're basing your Pontiac "knowledge" on anything more than 5 years old, you're not paying attention. Pontiacs are back, and with teeth in them Tigers.... Everyone knows, tigers EAT sheep (oh, sorry, rams) for lunch every day...

Well....I guess you boiled it down to "My Dad can kick Your dad's ass" or whatever.....From stock "muscle cars" to track monster's....What in the Hell is a Dimwiddie....

Terzmo, Dinwiddie is the name of the town where the dragstrip Virginia Motorsports Park is at, commonly refered to as Dinwiddie here by some of the locals. Wow it seems as if we started a full on battle on engine supremacy here. I guess in the realm of Pontiac guys, performance is back for them. I guess that's why you can go into any Pontiac dealer and order up parts for that old 400, not! The arguments you make are quite Pontiac slated. The big engines that make serious horsepower without being a hemi would be BBC, or 360 series Fords and this from a Mopar guy. Hemi's are just way too expensive. By the way your claim that a wedgemotor can't make more than 640 horsepower on 92 octane. Call up Dick Landy and he'll explain to you how he can build the one that won the engine master's challenge. Indy cylinder heads will make more power than any Poncho head as well the B-1 T/S. Sorry MrPBody.

Your position is new cars....I have NO interest in new cars except for transportation. I run the dodge on the street every good day there is out there...and My definition of a good day is dry....as long as the salt is gone from the roads..temp doesn't matter...that's why I usually run it about 5000 miles in a short WNY cruise season....93 octane....almost a horse per cube....plans for next season will put it over a horse per cube and still run pump gas. On another thought....I'm not a nitrous fan....it's a cheap way for hp but it's phony to Me bacause it's not available the entire evening cruise. Squirt the bottle and eventually it's gone..I'd rather spend the money and have hp at all times.

I try to make opinions based on both new and old. I don't take the position on just new vehicles. As you may know, I own a 70 Dart Swinger 340, hardly new. I objectively try to reason as to why someone would want a new performance car and compare it to the old. There is nothing wrong with alot of today's performance vehicles. I know Dodge doesn't have much, but that doesn't mean I am going to turn my head on alot of the new stuff. I love taking the dart out on the weekends and summer drives too. I know that there is more inherent reliability built-in to today's performance machines, you just have to take a different approach to modifying them. Hence all the power-adders of late. I would take an old car and add compression cam and heads to make power, but sacrifice drivability inturn. New cars you can modify and maintain drivability more. I know this, unless you build BIG stroker big blocks with low compression, it is hard to make alot of HP with the old technology. The new cars with all there fuel injection, and computers have power waiting to be tapped into. It just depends on what you like. If you ask me, nothing is funner than driving a Big Block musclecar with a 4-speed. Whether it's a GTO, Chevelle, Road Runner, Torino, Buick, or anything from 64-74 from detroit that had 383 or bigger and a stick. They just give you butterflies in your stomach when you drive them, that you don't get with today's smooth running power machines.

Wedgemotor, Relax. I was just razzin' him. As a professional engine builder, I am fully aware of the power potential of the RB engine. I DID see the Landy engine in Engine Masters Magazine, and it did just fine. It was, however, a big roller and all aftermarket stuff. The Pontiac I was refering to is a flat-tappet job. Both are quite impressive. I find it humorous when someone spews pure BS about the Pontiac, based on hearsay and supposition. The man claims there are '67 389s, making it quite clear he has no idea about Pontiac history, and what was or was not available. Just got off the phone this minute, with a man looking at a '67 GTO for sale. The owner claims it was an original TriPower car. The build sheet says 400 CID HO 4-bbl., TH400 transmission. I believe Pontiac before I do a seller. There are no TriPower cars in any body style, after '66.
As things are right now, the Mopes are right where they've always been. The power levels and parts availablility are good. The popularity level is still number 3, behind Chevy and Ford (in that order). Pontiac has climbed from relative obscurity since the engine was discontinued, to number 4 among racers, and is at the top of the muscle car restoration and collecting list. We owe this to NMCA, as one cannot have muscle car races without GTOs, and one cannot really call it GTO if it has a Chevy engine. Market-driven parts and services are at an all-time high for the Pontiac. We have many heads, intakes, etc. that are real race parts. Rods are now relatively cheap, making the engine a viable performance option (rids us of the old cast rods GM forced upon us).
Those of us on the "inside" of Pontiac performance, are aware of a few new pieces not yet released, but out of prototyping and beginning the arduous task of manufacture, that will change EVERYTHING in GM camps. There are three new heads (including one race-only unit that will rival "Big Chief" for flow and power potential, 400-plus CFM BEFORE porting), two new blocks (including one aluminum), a rumor of a good, non-twist forging available in various strokes, two new intakes (not remakes or knock-offs), and ALL the cam companies have jumped in. It really is an exciting time for we Injun fans. You should be seeing some of the new stuff at your local tracks by the middle of the year. There are a couple of "B" class funny cars coming, too, nitro and all!
It's kinda funny, but when we talk to old timers about the new goodies, they get a bit nerveous. They have respect and remember when they dreaded the day they would line up against a Catalina or GTO. The younger set scoffs at them and laugh. Many a dollar has been taken from such a cocky youngster with more balls than brains.
By the way, there a few new cam grinds and some other "trinkets" in the current GM Performance catelog for the Pontiac. GM is paying "lip service" the GTO craze. The valve covers are popular among the show car crowd, but aren't tall enough for real engines (roller rockers). Reports on the new cam grinds (they still offer ALL the old performance grinds through GM) are sketchy, as GM isn't known for leading edge cam technology (not since the '60s). Most opt for proven aftermarket components. But yes, there ARE parts from GM for the 400...
The simple truth is, if you apply enough money and time, you can make ANY engine make big power (relative to displacement). What is happening now is the parts are getting more reasonable in price and the level of quality and engineering have made making big power easy.
Please take my comparison comments with the humor they were intended. But don't scoff too loudly at the GTO you may have to race. One thing's for sure, we've always had the element of surprise! I know I won more than one race because the oponent (regardless of what he/she was driving) underestimated the power potential of my GTO, and got caught flat-footed at the light, while The Judge just blazed them out of the gate. Once out front, it's pretty hard to run the Poncho down. I DO recall getting embarassed real good (grammar) one night by a '69 GTX... I got him out of the gate, but long about the middle of third, he went by like I was parked! 440 Magnum. Never lost to a small Dodge, nor to anything with a 6-Pack (I suspect it was tuning issues). But those Magnums and police package 440s were AWESOME!
You should see the 499 we're doing right now! Cross-bolt mains, big XE solid roller, should make near 700 HP (11:1). You wouldn't know where there's a B-1 intake with the 4500 flange for sale, used, would you?

Lastly, let's see... An experienced writer from the era, and a certified master with 25 years experience (and a published technical writer, legally recognized expert) say to pay attention to history for what it is, not for what you think it should be, yet you continue to argue. Name-calling and personal insults are the tactics of someone in a corner with no real ammo to illustrate their position.
**************************************************
It's okay. You can believe your Buick is better than a Pontiac. You can believe your Buick was/is the best.

I know I came off that way, but I don't think any one is better than the other, nor do I think one is best. I'm just sick of people who consider themselves to be "experts" commenting on cars they know nothing about. And what really irks me is when they use a photo of a car in a book or article that isn't even correct! I've read more false information about the cars I know best in many books and articles. That just leads to more mis-information and arguing.

Writers will never go against what the majority of their readers want to read......come on, what sells more books? Authors who don't write what the readers want to hear will not be employed very long. I don't need much ammo to prove that point.......it's obvious.

I personally insulted that guy and it was directed at writers in general.......where Buick Rivieras are concerned, I haven't read material from a magazine or book yet that is completely accurate. Maybe they get their facts from mistaken sources? I don't know, but I do know that non-facts are also presented about other cars too, so I take whatever I read with a grain of salt, and laugh when I read things that I know are wrong. I'm not perfect either, but what really pees me off is when someone writes mistaken facts and then presents them to me like I'm wrong when I know I'm right. :banghead:

Can't we all just get along?

Hey guy, no offense taken about writers. The way auto magazine have always done road tests is that they receive a vehicle from the manufacturer with all of its specs. They usually confirm many of these specs during the road test. Bond Publishing- Road & Track, Car Life, Cycle World, Dune Buggies & Hot VWs- had 2 full time mechanics on staff for some of that. I can't speak for any other media source but Bond editors wrote what they found.

Some things are pure performance-related via test instruments recordimg acceleration and such. Some things are subjective. Is a car comfortable for a 6' 4" driver? No? Then if you say the say it's uncomfortable you're doing it an injustice. It's uncomfortable only to really tall drivers. 99.9% of drivers will have no problems.

A road test is pretty much black and white. You read the performance figures. Car gets 18 MPG city and generates .65g in the skidpad. Pretty much every magazine that tests the car will get nearly identical figures. What's inaccurate there?

The car manufacturers have always done market research and created certain cars with certain images. They don't sell the steak. They sell the sizzle. It's all image. When they or the media in general named a niche the manufacturers competed for that niche. If it was compacts then each company marketed it's compact with an image to appeal to the consumer that was interested in cars in that category. Often the sizzle wasn't steak at all. It was pork chops! But they kept those lines between cars. The more lines a manufacturer had the more likely they were to snag you as a customer with something they made.

The compacts were economy cars. They soon grew to have V-8s and there never was a named category for them that stuck- performance compacts? Intermediates had lots of variance in the definition. Companies subdivided the category by making cars just a tad larger though much heavier and called it personal luxury. The '63 Riviera was advertised as a new class of car etc., etc., etc.
Other companies came out with their personal luxury cars too. Luxury cars were full sized like Lincolns or Caddies. Lines of distinction got very blurred in the 60s. Could a Mercury Marquis be a true luxury car? It wasn't a presonal-sized luxury car and it wasn't a plain Mercury. It was optioned up with luxury items. The Mercury was never considered a luxury car in its history. Was a bread and butter Ford Galaxie optioned out really luxurious?

If manufacturers had just dropped the personal luxury cars into the intermediate class there would have been confusion and loss of sales.

The actual term of the time was "supercar" in describing performance intermediates. Muscle car came somewhere around 1970 or so. I have no idea where it originated. For all I know maybe Smoky Yunnick coined it. By 1974 it was in use after all the degradation of HP and performance occured. The term described intermediate-sized cars that had had performance options that transformed the original semi-economical plain car into something else or separate lines of performance intermediates. Back in the 70s everyone knew which cars were meant when one said muscle car.

It's like pornography. It's hard to describe legally but you know it when you see it.

As for writers, they are governed by the editorial policies of the media they work for. If you have ever read mags like Car and Driver, for example, you know how immune they are to writing what readers want to hear. I can tell you for sure that all they get are the cars and the press releases. There are paid for press only shows and such but come on, in today's world where people call it like it is there is no way and magazine could survive long soliciting kick backs from manufacturers and writing how nice BMWs are if they're really crappy. Who's going to sell out their employer and their integtiry for a shrimp cocktail? There is no conspiracy of auto writers to confuse the public with inaccurate info.

Is Consumer Reports biased?

I'm curious as to what exactly you've found inaccurate in Riviera reporting within the print media. Specifications, weights and measurments can't be far apart. Performance issues such as mileage, acceleration, and top speed can't vary much. If they do it's atmospheric conditions, tire differences, tire pressures and the idiosynchrocies of the human testers involved.

The histories are public records with data and figures from the companies themselves. I can only imagine that you must mean areas that are subjective to individuials. One says the ride is too hard and another says its too soft while Goldilocks say its just right.

An editorial is an opinion expressed by one journalist reflecting the values of his publisher. A road test or historical article is quite factual for the most part, with subjective areas of variance noted.

I don't want this to sound the wrong way at all, but what do you know that Motor Trend, for example, didn't know when they tested a certain Buick in a certain year? A "non-fact" is an opinion or subjective conclusion. "We think the car is too noisy" or "none of our testers liked the soft suspension." Point is in statements like these are that some folks will NOT think the car is too noisy or that the suspension is too soft.

If a writer says the 1966 Babaloo XR had 345HP when it had 360HP then he is in error. Is he purposely misleading you? Probably not. Why would he?

I own about every automotive magazine printed from the early 1950s to about 1975. I couldn't begin to imagine finding material on all the cars they tested or all the engineering articles from any other one source. If a 1967 article interviewing Zora Duntov describes a range of SOHC, DOHC, 3-valve, 4-valve, hemi head engines and several F.I. configurations that Chevrolet experimented with I figure it's for real.

Fortunately I can go back and read the reviews, road tests and engineering articles on all the pony cars, muscle cars, sports cars, econo cars and so on.

Peering back in history attempting to apply today's values is like reading the ending of a book then wondering why the characters in the beginning don't behave as though they have your knowledge.

In truth I think the original term of the times is more accurate in "supercar." It encompasses all domestic high performance cars plain and simple.
http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Thread-Dumb.jpg

the term "muscle car" was coined by John Delorean in 1963 and yes he also did create the DMC-12

A quick word about this insane,4 page arguement covering...well, everything. Mr.Buick, you win the award for "Most SUBJECTIVELY Correct Person Ever To Grace God's Green Earth". Pbody knows what he's talkig about. Dont shove your Owner's manual in his face. To be perfectly honest, I think you own this Gran Sport, Followed by 3 or 4 ricers. I say youre subjectively correct because this whole arguement is clearly a matter of opinion. Pbody and MagicRat know what theyre saying, and try to present the facts in order to correct you, and aid you in your further prowess as a car lover or enthusiast, or whatever you want to be called. Then you go and personalize it. What is this, an arguement about whose Hot Wheels is the best? Jeezus Christ dude, the fact that you dont have any personal or mutual respect for a professional engine builder makes my bones shake. What do you do? When was the last time you ripped apart an engine, rebored it,...i believe your hands are tainted, tainted with the devil's fluid, the oil of IMPORTS! MY POINT: Dont call that buick a musclecar. you saiud yourself you dont WANT to belong to that category. then stop crying and bitching, and go change the oil on your '93 Supra. Thanks.

65,
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but this thread died long ago. Rivguy hasn't been back.
It's okay. We (guys like MagicRat and I) get these pot-shots taken at us all the time. As it's plenty easy to "fake" being an expert on line, I don't blame him for being skeptical.
This particular site is overrun with young bucks, too, spouting all the shade-tree and bench racing stuff they really believe to be true, 'cuz that's what they heard somewhere from someone... It's difficult to shake that, expecially when some body comes along and blows your whole arguement out of the water. Since they "know" the guy at McDonald's that spouts off and they don't know me from Adam, I MUST be wrong...
I've had no direct contact with MagicRat, just the occasional exchange here. But I'll bet, if he isn't CURRENTLY working as a mechanic or automotive machinist, he HAS, somewhere in his past. I wonder if he's an old fart like me...

Jim