I raised the question, "What is a musclecar?" in another thread. I think it might be an interesting discussion.

My understanding is the term was coined in the '60s to describe a mid size car with a big engine and very few options, i. e. the GTO, Chevelle, Roadrunner, etc. The idea was to make a fast car that any pimple-faced kid in high school could afford on their $3/hr part time job. GTXs, 442s, GSXs and similar cars usually included a bunch of luxury options and were relatively pricey but they are considered musclecars. Eventually, musclecars included pony cars such as the Camaro, Mustang, 'Cuda and Challenger. Musclecars also came to include sports cars like the Vette and SC Cobra. What about full size cars? Are Impalas, Monacos, Galaxys, and Furys musclecars? Many people call my '65 Plymouth a musclecar. It's really a clone of a factory super stock race car but it's easier to just let it go than to try to explain. Is a new 300C or Magnum RT a musclecar? What about an SRT-8, SRT-6 or SRT-4? Are they musclecars? Has the definition of a musclecar become so blurred that it refers to just about any domestic performance car? Are there imported musclecars?

What do you think? What is your definition of a musclecar?

 

The 'traditional' definition of musclecar began as a mid-size 2-door body with a large V8 engine of 300 or more HP. As you say, that definition became very nebulous with time and included compacts, full-size, pony cars, and even 'sports' cars such as the Vette before the era ended. I don't know that there is a universally accepted definition anymore. For every attempt to define it, several exceptions that can be included will come to mind.

 

I have to agree with the fact that it isn't a clear defintion. But I would say any V8 car that has been tuned for one thing....POWER!!!

 

Well, TeeWJay426 summed up the musclecar part fairly well, so I will just address the later part. None of the newer cars are musclecars, not even the Viper which I love more than anything just about. All of the others are way far from the musclecar formula, even if they make the new Charger sedan with an 800 horsepower big block Hemi it still won't be a musclecar. As I have said about my SRT-4 before, it is not and never will be a musclecar, but it is a car with muscle.

 

A muscle car is a old, heavy, unreliable, high octane consuming, straightline car that changes its definition if anything newer threatens its standing as a muscle car.

That being said, I still love the old cars. Ive often wondered a 440 dart weighs less than my R/T and I severely thump it with the h.p. per cu inch, which used to part of the muscle car formula that the motor made 1 h.p. per cu in. Wonder whos the muscle car then? I love telling the V8 guys the 2.2 TIII is the most powerful motor per cu in. Dodge used in a street car.

 

It's interesting, there seems to be a definite semantical difference between generations here.

I'm getting a little off topic but I want to point out something that should be obvious. The newer engines benefit from computer control, power adders and other updated technology. That's why smaller engines are producing impressive amounts of power when compared to 30 and 40 year old engines. My son has a WRX that dynoed at 420 hp at the flywheel from 2.5 liters and is still reliable and streetable. Amazing! Apply that same technology to an older, larger engine and ...well, just bring along an extra pair of shorts. For example, the naturally aspirated 440 in my Belvedere has a fairly mild street/strip set-up using modern parts that include an Edelbrock Performer RPM Power package, Edelbrock heads and MSD ignition control pieces. It makes 510 horse and 550 lbs. of torque from only 448 cubic inches. It should push my "heavy" 3,300 lb. (that's stock weight and, incidentally, is the same as my son's WRX) Belvedere down the 1/4 mile in about 11.5 seconds all day long without breaking a sweat or parts. There is a lot more in the motor but I want to keep it's mild manners. Getting 600 hp or 1,000 hp or even more out of 440 cubic inches with modern technology is not that difficult. There is an old saying, there is no replacement for displacement. Apply similar technology to a larger displacement engine and you will make more power. The old pushrod hemi V-8s used in top fuel make 7,500 hp (And, yes, although John Force calls his funny car a Mustang, he's running a hemi). They could make more but they are limited by rule to 500 cubic inches. They also regulate the fuel mixture to try and slow them down because they are reaching the human limitations of being able to drive them safely. I guarantee you that if inline 4 banger technology could make more power per cubic inch, they would be using them instead of these old school V-8s. As it is, they run 4.5 seconds at over 330 mph.

One hp/cu. in. was never part of the musclecar formula: 383 Roadrunner - 335 hp, 440 Coronet - 375 hp, SS 396 Chevelle - 300 - 375 hp, 340 Duster - 275 hp, etc.

Okay, back to defining musclecars. I'm enjoying the discussion.

 

I know I'm getting thumped on this one probably , but here goes.

It's any car from the 60's to early 70's that was intended to be a performance model. I wouldn't consider my Coronet 440 a muscle car because of the engine that came stock, but from a performance standpoint today, could be included in that group. Newer cars like the Buick GN, Camaro SS, and Firebirds could also be included since they meet the basic definition of mid-size and v-8 performance engine with 2 doors.

It's a pretty loose definition if you ask me.

 

font engine and rear wheel drive are a must

 

Don't worry about getting thumped. There are so many opinions on this subject that there is no right or wrong answer. It's just a friendly discussion.

You make an interesting point about cars that weren't originally performance cars but have been "restified" into hot street cars. I'll bet a lot of people refer to your Coronet as a musclecar (BTW, '69 Coronets are of of my all time favorite cars - especially 6 paks!). I know that your car would be welcome in a lot of car shows that are designated for musclecars only.

I agree that the newer cars you mentioned are usually classified as musclecars by most people but remember, the GN was a V-6. That confuses the issue even more. I don't want to be the one to tell the local GN club that they aren't musclecars because they don't have 8 cylinders when they run solid 14s stock and 12s with a few tweaks.

The line gets blurred even more...

 

a V8 is a must..i think once u get below a v8 ppl refer to them as "ricers" and above a v8 ppl refer to them as "exotics"


but thats just it its ppl

everyone has thier on opinion

i wouldnt consider a viper an exotic car or a muscle car

IMO v12's are exotices

i kno im getting off topic


but yea muscle cars IMO rwd... front engine... 2 door... big block v8 engine... loud exhaust... fat tires .... white letter tires[sm=smiley20.gif]


yea thats my opinion