What's a good starter car?

[baravik]

I will soon be able to get my driver's license, and I was wondering what a good muscle car to start with is? First off, I'm not gonna be stupid with it, I just respect good American muscle and love the sound of the engine. I don't need anything in great shape or showroom condition, just a classic piece of muscle that is half way reliable and looks sexy. Thanks.

[Shpuker]

you probaly don't wana go with the front names for muscle (GTO, Charger, Camero, Etc...) seing as they tend to be more expensive, but personaly I've always liked the 1970's AMC javelin, you might be able to find one in decent shape but you'll probaly need to ask around.

[arock7musicx]

Late 70's camaros can be had for dirt cheap

[oldblu65]

I'm not sure a late 70'ish Camaro qualifies as a " Muscle Car " ? That was after the government starting cracking down on pollution , the insurance companies raised their prices through the roof , and the auto makers started taking the power out of these cars . The early 70's Camaro had good power but actually were considered " Pony Cars " rather than true " Muscle Cars " . Also , I'm not sure there is an actual " starter car " that would apply to a true " Muscle Car " . They are pretty much in the expensive price class no matter what make you choose . I've seen some outrageous prices asked for what I'd call true " rust buckets " . Prices I'd never even consider giving for these relics . The term " Muscle Car " is applied rather loosely today to an eclectic class of vehicles .I think the term belongs in the late 60's , early 70's but not to today's vehicles . They should be referred to as " Performance cars " . The true " Muscle Cars " had big cubic inch , high horsepower engines in small bodies .Todays vehicles feature small cubic engines with various techniques used to boost good power . Today a 4.6 L engine is considered a " large " engine ( ? ) ! My 1965 Chevrolet truck has a 4.6 L ( 283 cubic inch ) engine ! No , it doesn't have the power ( in stock form ) that today's 4.6 L engines do . I think this illustrates the difference in today's thinking compared to that of the true " Muscle Car " era . Just my , take it for what it's worth !

[arock7musicx]

Big ci engines in small bodies? You mean like the 455 Pontiac GTO? Or the 454 Chevelle SS? - Hardly small. The only 60's era muscle car I would consider "small" would probably be the corvette, and that has always been more "sports car" than "muscle car." I think the term "muscle car" better defines big, heavy, comfortable cruisers with lots of cubic inches, lots of power, lots of space, lots of weight, lots of noise.. just a lot of car with priority given to power, comfort and drama than to light weight sporty handling. I also believe muscle cars are being produced today. Take a look at the new camaro's and challengers - oversized cars with oversized engines.

On a side note, my 1980 Z28 made over 400 whp with just blueprinted block (350), edelbrock intake, holley 750 dbl pumper, hooker headers and flowmaster exhaust. Mid 13's in the 1/4 and more power than any kid who just got their drivers license will ever need. Not to mention the small block chevy is probably the easiest motor to find parts for and work on in the world. It was my first "muscle car" and I think it fit the bill perfectly.

[MrPbody]

If you guys go to the "sticky" on this forum, you can read the real "definition" of muscle car.

No need to worry about "factory ratings" with the late '70s stuff. It's a matter of a few changes to get the power up to and beyond the late '60s level.

400 HP at the rear wheels from a "stock" 350? I don't THINK so... Perhaps it was NEAR 400 at the flywheel (gross brake HP). It takes about 375 GBHP to get a Camaro into the 13s.

FWIW

Jim

[arock7musicx]

Dyno proven

[oldblu65]

The 455 GTO and the 454 Chevelle were models produced in the waning years of the Muscle Car when the bodies were becoming too large for their original purpose ( muscle cars ) ! The early Chevelles and GTO's were smaller ( intermediate ) cars in their prospective makes lineups . This was the area where the horsepower wars started and where the muscle cars originated .The full size Chevrolets , Pontiacs , Fords , and Chryslers were large cars indeed ! The horsepower wars actually started with the larger car such as the Pontiac Bonneville , If you go back to the early 60's and see what the auto manufacturers were putting on the drag strip and stock car tracks , you'll see and appreciate how large these cars were originally . Google the " Early Nascar and NHRA dragstrip cars " and see for yourself . I have to agree with MR. Pbody on the horsepower claim of a basically warmed over 350 . P.S. - Very Mature response !

[arock7musicx]

Well, ya know, I just don't need to hear that garbage when I've been wrenching on small block chevys since..well, "the end of the muscle car era." My Z was put on a dynapack, and when I can look at the computer screen and see it right in front of me - 399hp, 403hp, 401hp.. I'm gonna call out someone who either A. Doesn't know what they're talking about or B. Needs more practice tuning.

Maybe the late 60's cars were produced near the end of the muscle car era, but they are also the cream of the crop when it comes to performance (which, unless you're a show car weenie for some reason, is what muscle cars are all about). This is why pretty much everybody thinks of the GTO Judge, Chevelle SS, or similar when the topic comes up, and not a '64 Bonnie. I personally (and probably the vast majority of people) don't quite agree with this site's definition of a muscle car. Let's take a survey of people's favorite muscle car and see how many people say "Pontiac Bonneville!"

I'm sure I won't win any arguments here on that topic though. It's pretty clear that's been discussed in the past, thus the aformentioned sticky. I guess that's why I waste most of my time on the computer at enthusiast forums where people know what they're talking about.

[Blt2Lst]

I would suggest you look at 79-93 mustang 5.0's
Lots of bang for the buck, fairly inexpensive compared to cars from the 60's and 70's, strong aftermarket for parts, easy to work on for a begginer.
They are not the muscle cars others are talking about but are a true performance car that is affordable. Drop in a 347 stroker motor and some 4.11's and then tell me this is not a muscle car..
Good luck

[oldblu65]

No one said that a Bonneville was ever considered a " muscle car " ! It was stated that the Bonneville was one of the original participants in the " Horsepower Wars " ! .These original cars led to the " muscle cars " being created trying to better the other manufacturers models . Under the two listings you posted , I'd say you are an " A " since you list your references as a computer screen and say the ones that lived through that era don't know what they're talking about ! You are likely correct about not many on AF agreeing with you on your definition of a true " muscle car " and also for the " majority " ( as you stated ) as well . If you think these " other " websites are more correct in their definition of a " muscle car " , then I think the " majority " here on AF would agree that perhaps you should concentrate on those sites ? I'm not sure those people on the other sites really know what they're talking about ? Perhaps you think so since it apparently agrees with your opinion .Not trying to be rude or crude but the " tone " of your posting suggests that's the only way you understand to communicate ? Just my $0.02 for whatever it's worth ?

[Blt2Lst]

Originally Posted by arock7musicx

Late 70's camaros can be had for dirt cheap

That's because nobody wants them.

[MrPbody]

Pontiac's "entry" in the "super car" (full-size cars with "race" engines) market was Catalina, not Bonneville. It sported a bit shorter wheelbase and about 400 less lbs. and the magnificent 421 "Super Duty" engine. The '62 Cat was the most dominant single-year model in professional racing history. They won 35 of 36 "Grand National" (what we call "Cup" today) races, 31 by two drivers, Fireball Roberts and Joe Weatherly. They also won the majority of NHRA "Stock" and "Super Stock" races in '62. Chevy's entry in the class was the 409 Impala. Dodge had the 413 and 426 ("wedge") Darts and Furys. Ford had the 406 Galaxie. It took until '64 and "Hemi" to knock the Pontiac off the top. "Factory money" was cut off to GM race teams (Pontiac AND Chevy) after Fireball Roberts' death in a crash. Even without backing, the SD cars still dominated '63.

GTO was the first "muscle car", the phrase being coined by John Z. DeLorean during a management presentation in late '63 (per Jim Wangers in his book "Glory Days"). He said "It's like a regular intermediate car with more muscle", refering to the Tempest body with the Catalina/Bonneville 389 installed.

Arock,

You can stand up for small block all you want. I respect a bit of loyalty, but realism must intercede at some point. I have personally built hundreds of small blocks over the years, for street, drags, circle track, even a couple "pullin' trucks". While small block Chevy IS a great engine, it's not the "giant killer" the reputation carries. A real smart engine builder once said "Never send a boy to do a MAN'S job..." Smokey Yunik, circa 1967. Not a single TRUE muscle car was built by ANY American manufacturer during the era, with a small block... Even ALL the Chevys were at least 396 CID (first one was the L-78 '65 Chevelle). Small block didn't show up in SS until '72, when the tide had already "turned".

Horsepower is a mathematical computation. Unless there's a bunch "left out" of the description of the build, the numbers don't "add up". A typical 355 (350 bored .030) with GOOD heads (2.02s, 1.60s, 50-plus % efficient ports) at 9.5:1 (pump gas "friendly") and Comp XE268H (a FEW "steps" above stock), Victor jr., and a Holley 650 "race" carb, makes right at 420 GBHP. That would put about 325 at the RW.

For clarity, I am NOT a "computer expert". I'm an ASE Master engine builder with 35 years experience. I was THERE in '69-'73 in SoCal where muscle cars were HOPPIN' (literally, sometimes...)! My background includes small blocks, but also includes virtually every other engine used in the era. Today, I build among the most powerful and durable Pontiac V8s available anywhere. BUT... The local "big dog" racers that run small blocks have MY engines in their cars (including VMP's bracket champ '09). You don't wanna banter with me about who knows what. I'm here to offer REAL information, not clouded by brand loyalty. Yes, I AM loyal to the Pontiac, but I'm not stupid about Chevys, Fords, Dodges or even Ramblers (have one customer with a 9 second AMX). I have another with a Buick 455 that goes 10.40s in a 3,400 lb. Regal, and is moving toward 200 passes (making power with the Buick is not that difficult. Making it LIVE is the "challenge"). All I ask is that you not be "stupid" about engines other than your favorite.

Jim

[arock7musicx]

Sorry, I was a bad boy Didn't intend to get rude. Also realized I forgot the comp cams from my list of modifications, if that satisfies you Jim I'm not sure - probably not. I suppose it's possible that the rebuilt motor I picked up was set up for high compression, but not likely considering the engine used all OEM parts otherwise.

The chevy small block is a great engine for what it is. And for a youngster looking to gain some experience, there are few options out there as simple, abundant or inexpensive. That being said, it's certainly not my favorite. Just my first. But as far as brand loyalty? I guess I'm just kind of a slut I love my loud, noisy and stinky hot rods. I have to say though that my best experiences have been with Toyotas 2JZTT. Hold on hold on... let me get my flame suit ready.

[arock7musicx]

Originally Posted by Blt2Lst

That's because nobody wants them.

Spot on