on the contrary, the original RRs and GTOs were offered with a limited engine lineup, i.e. the 383 and 389.

 

No offense but the definition you were raised with is not based on historic reality. The first Pony Cars were the Barracuda and Mustang in 1964. They were sporty car built on the Valiant and Falcon platforms respectively. They were followed by the Camaro, Cougar, Javelin, AMX, Challenger and Firebird. They were cars that were often used to run in Trans Am racing. The definition of a Pony Car is much more absolute and included things like a short wheelbase, sporty performance suspension and a performance small block. By the late 60s, in an effort to rule the streets and the drag strip, car companies started putting big blocks in Pony Cars. Roadrunners and GTOs were never, ever remotely considered Pony Cars. Although, Pony Cars are now included in what people consider Musclecars.

You're right, they hadn't coined the term "Musclecar" in the 50s but in hind sight, many of the experts argue that, under the original formula of a musclecar being a midsize two-door with a big performance engine, the 300s were the first. However, some claimed that the 300s didn't qualify because they were considered full size cars. Another condition of a musclecar was affordability. The 300s were relatively expensive in their day. The first GTO not only had two doors, a big engine and was midsize but, it was affordable. A high school kid working part time could afford one. The goal with the 383 Roadrunner was to build an affordable car with youth appeal that could reach 100 mph in the 1/4 mile. It did that and that is why it is so significant in Musclecar history.

The GTO didn't have any option other than the 389 until, I think it was 1967 when they went to the 400. Yet most people agree that it was the very first Musclecar in 1964. The first Roadrunner in 1968 only had the 383 or the Hemi. So, are you saying that the 383 Roadrunner wasn't a Musclecar but the Hemi was? The Chevelle only had the 396 from 1965 until 1970 except for the very few COPO exceptions. You're saying that a Chevelle wasn't a musclecar until 1970?

Danko makes a great point about the Chevy IIs with the L78 package and the 340 Mopars. Chevy IIs and 340 Darts were some of the best sleepers around in the late 60s. While they didn't fit the original Musclecar formula they are usually considered Musclecars today along with the Pony Cars.

The original purpose of this thread was to see how diverse or deluted the definition of a Musclecar has become through the years. Obviously, it has very different meanings to people, especially from different age groups. That's fine. Who's to say who is right and who is wrong?

 

you havent figured out whose job it is here to say who is right and wrong asp? if you dont know..feel free to Pm me, and ill let you know...

 

Everyone else has pretty much already said it all. The accepted number for musclecar engine size is 350 CID or larger with 300 horsepower or more, most are only considered a musclecar if they have a big block and are mid-late 60's through the early-mid 70's, but these are all subjective.

You say that a musclecar is simply a 2 dr. sports car, that couldn't be farther from the truth as they are completely different in almost every way. True sports cars are small to mid size 2 dr., 2 seaters with any engine (4 cylinder to V8 usually) and drivetrain layout as long as they are RWD. They are generally lightweight and have a performance suspension. A muscle car is a mid size car, 2 dr. 4+ seater with 350+ CID front engine with 300+ horsepower and RWD.

The '79 Trans Am was one of the best looking cars ever, but they are pathetic heavy weak sleds. A friend of mine bought one for his first car and it couldn't spin it's bald tires unless it was on ice or gravel. It had the Olds 6.6L 403 and they only had 185 horsepower, I don't even think it had that much. That thing was the farthest thing from a muscle car even though it had most of the definitions for one pegged. Man was it ever a turd.[:'(][:'(][:'(]

 

"..most people agree the '64 GTO was the first musclecar." ???? duh? WHERE did that come from and who are these people agreeeing to that? The 1957 283 F.I. 4 speed Chevy was damned strong! Plymouth Furies, Dodge 500's, Desoto Adventurers and Chrysler 300's all preceded the Goat and WERE musclecars! In 1962 Plymouth had a VERY Strong 413 tearing up the strips. Ford had 401 h.p. tri-power 406's. 409's and 421's were there then too and it is not right to dismiss them as full-sized because their wheelbases and weights were not that big, actually. The Plymouth wheelbase was 116". Dodges were 117". 1963 brought 427 Fords, the 426 MoPar wedge and then the hemi's. Some 1964 Fairlanes were available with 427's. ALL of those would eat up the Goat. I actually am a big fan of the 1964 GTO because of the simplicity of its style which I prefer to the vertically stacked headlights on the 1965.

 

See, this is exactly my point. The term "Musclecar" means something different to alot of different people. Danko is including just about any high performance domestic car and I think he has a good argument. Nothing could touch the 413 and 426 Wedges or the 426 Hemi in the early to mid 60s but they're not considered Musclecars by a lot of people. I personally can't overlook the first hemi powered 300s from the 50s. But, a whole lot of the automotive journalists and historians argue in favor of the GTO because they claim that the term was originally coined to only mean an affordable midsize car with little or no options other than a big engine and maybe a 4 spd. Nowadays, car shows, that are for Musclecars only, welcome all the cars that Danko just mentioned with open arms.

I started this thread a while back because someone referred to the new Charger as a musclecar. Some of us older folks may question whether it's a real musclecar or not. Others think the obvious answer is that it is. It made me wonder just how all of us here on this forum define a Musclecar. It's been an interesting discussion. One thing is for sure, the American version of the English language is very dynamic and constantly evolving.

 

No arguement here, that is why I stated that it was all subjective. There has been the on going battle for years as to what the first muscle car was and the most accepted one has been the GTO. I've heard some bring up a few Mopars from the late 50's as being the "real" or "true" first muscle car, just like the definition of the term muscle car, it will always be debated and never actually defined. I think the mid 60's - mid 70's, mid-size, 2 dr., 4+ seater, RWD, 350 CID or larger V8 with 300 horsepower or more (going by the gross rating and not the net rating) definition for the muscle car term to be the most accurate.

 

I still like my definition of a musclecar being a car with an engine that makes no sense to most people. That includes most we would agree upon.

 

What is a Muscle car?
They say that one picture is worth a thousand words......

Richard

[IMG]local://upfiles/13460/AF43F9E336FC48BBA9B18E735E4F563B.jpg[/IMG]