Classic Musclecars

captaincarl · November 2000

Actually, scientific studies have show that the '69 is not the most badass machine ever made. The '68 Charger is. I never liked that split grill on the '69. Without the split grill, the '68 front end looks like a big, dangerous air intake on a jet fighter. The '69 does have better tailights, though.

chevyman13 · November 2000

I have a '66 GTO and until you have driven a GTO you don't know what badass is!

carnut4 · November 2000

with the 450 horse 454??

Mr_Shiftright · November 2000

The GTO is sort of a legend, even if it may not be the fastest of ALL the musclecars that came later. It is still the one they sing about...remember "little GTO"? They even mention the engine size and 3X2 carbs in the lyrics. I just did an appraisal on a 66 GTO convertible, 389/3X2, Montero Red, black interior. Very nice and fun to drive. Only "issue" was that the engine number showed it as a 4-barrel, so somebody did a conversion long, long ago it looks like. The carbs had the right number for the type of car, though.

ndance · December 2000

The back end of those cars is pretty funny looking. Add that to the godawful front end on the '65 to '67 cars and there you go.

Of the cars I've owned, the 454/450 Chevelle really worked best as an all-around car. Plenty of room for people and stuff, reasonably quiet, and they really seem to have a handle on dealing with a batch of weight in the front. Cars like 428CJ Mustangs, etc. really handle handle like pigs. With an M-22 they sound really cool, too.
(Plus you get the cool little trap door on the hood).

isellhondas · December 2000

There is just something about those...the 66 and 67's were nice too but seemed bloated compared to the '65's.

And...I was unlucky enough to pick up a " Speed Contest" ticket in a buddy's when I was in high school.

Those are NOT a good ticket to get!

carnut4 · December 2000

are my favorite-but I also like the 64s. Looked at a nice 65 GTO convertible yesterday-4speed, 3x2's, black in and out, complete resoration. Very tempting. There is just something about them. I never liked any of the later [67-72] GTOs or Chevelles as well as the 65s.

speedshift · December 2000

I think there're lots of reasons why the '65 has been so popular since it was new. First, it had enough engineering and racing heritage to back up some really great marketing. Second, it's small enough that the sensation of speed feels immediate. Third, it's less refined than the later goats, so the driver hears and feels more. Fourth, it looks great, better than the '64 and better than the competition--and it really didn't have much competition in '65. It took a few years for the rest of the industry to catch up, at least according to the sales numbers. Not until the '68 Road Runner, which was a lot like the '65 goat.

captaincarl · December 2000

I agree, the '65 was nice, but I like the '68-69 body style more. What a beauty! Give me a '69 non-Judge with the RA IV engine, 4-speed, rear end around 3.73 or so. It may not have been the fastest musclecar available that year, but it was close, it looked great, and you got a lot of hp for your dollar.

isellhondas · December 2000

Still, to me anyway, they look bloated compared to the earlier versions.

But, at least some of those had disc brakes and could stop pretty well.

The early goats were pretty weak in that department...scary!

speedshift · December 2000

Of course, it really depends on what you're looking for in a car. The later goats were more refined. With a performance car that's not always a good thing, but if the goal is an interesting daily driver it's much appreciated. And brakes are always a good thing. Those 9" drums went away pretty quickly.

carnut4 · December 2000

on all the 64-65 GTOs and other GM intermediates. I remember lots of bucks spent on broken rearends on those cars-including one Olds 442 I raced with my 65 Belvedere 383. I did the right thing and gave hime a ride home. It was his father's Oldsmobile...

isellhondas · December 2000

Well, they weren't TOO bad but given enough abuse...

Those 383 lightweight Plymouths were to be respected! They were real sleepers.

A punk in our high school thought his 65 Mustang - 289/271 H.P. was pretty hot stuff until he made the mistake of racing a classmate who happened to be driving his GRANDMOTHER'S 65 Belevedere 4 door stripper sedan.

Happilly, this event took place on our main drag with LOTS of people watching...hehehe..

carnut4 · December 2000

Here's another one... there was a rich, arrogant kid in highschool whose Daddy bought him a brand new 64 GTO-when they first came out. He'd drive around town, showing off an bragging. One day, a bunch of us were in a 7-11 parking lot hanging out, and this guy pulled up to a stop sign ready for a right turn. Seeing us, he popped the clutch and lit up the right rear in the puddle of water, and then his rear end scattered all over the street. What timing!
In another race I remember, a friend had a 63 Impala SS with the 250/327 and 4speed. He'd put on three twos, and the thing sounded and felt alot faster than it was. Anyway, he decided to go off against another friend in his 383 Belvedere with Torqueflite, from a rolling start on the freeway. After the race, my friend with the 383 asked the guy in the Impala, "were you really trying?" It was no contest.

isellhondas · December 2000

Yes, I have a healthy respect for those old 383's.

Those old Plmouths had marginal brakes and front ends that would eat ball joints and tie rod ends.

Otherwise they were pretty tough especially when coupled to a Torqueflight as they usually were.

If Grandma ever knew...that Belvedere could lay a patch of rubber almost from one stoplight to the next!

stickguy · December 2000

Not exactly a muscle car, but when I was in HS, a friends folks had a big Plymouth 4-door that they used to pull a trailer. I think it was from the mid-70s, not sure the exact year. Anyway, this boat must have had a 440 or something, because one day he took off from the corner of my street, and laid rubber waaay up a hill. My mother came out to see what was going on. Good thing I denied knowing who it was, since the car belonged to her close friend.

Try that with an Expedition.

rabidbowtie · December 2000

What's a Muscle car? What's a Classic car? What's a Pony car? What's a Henway?

The original muscle car term refers to an intermediate (mid-size) body car with a big V8 performance engine. So much for the Camaro being a muscle car. It's not an intermediate body.

Webster defines muscle car as "any of a group of American-made 2-door sports coupes with powerful engines designed for high-performance driving".
So much for convertibles, 2-door sedan roofs and Super Sport El Caminos.

Under the new definition, surely a Honda Vtec with a 9 foot Red Baron wing and a 7" exhaust tip would be considered 21st century muscle ... no?

Mr_Shiftright · December 2000

If you mean the "classic" muscle car, the type of car that originally minted the name, then, yes, you are right, it's a compact bodied car with a huge engine...I don't think it really had to be a coupe however, as we did see some sedans and converts of a "compact" size (by American standards) and stuffed with a big engine.

I think to qualify as a "muscle" car, even if we change the characteristics to suit modern cars, that the quality of "brutal power" has to apply...in a sense, more power than you could ever really use on a practical day to day basis. The idea of "excess" is inherent to the muscle car concept I think.

speedshift · December 2000

Yes, any car that tilts the scales well toward toward brute force and away from refinement and balance. I keep saying my GTP is a musclecar, not a sports sedan, at least in today's context of highly refined cars. It rattles, gets a little squirrely when you really lean on it, has little suspension travel or feedback, and gets relatively poor fuel economy. It's all about torque, and it keeps reminding you of it. The car does have a personality, kind of rare these days, but after three years that kind of personality can get a little tiresome.

rabidbowtie · December 2000

Definitions like Classic and Musclecar can really open up a can of worms.

Webster is out to lunch.

Interestingly enough, the purist publication Musclecar Review would agree with you Mr Shiftright. They have adopted the more liberal definition of the word.

Mr_Shiftright · December 2000

Well, I'm flattered, although I don't think my definition is really "liberal" if you read some opinions in the various boards here...but I do have my foot firmly placed in history, so at least I know what a muscle car "used to be"....and from there, we can perhaps come up with a modern equivalent that makes sense. A slammed Honda Civic doesn't cut it as a muscle car for me, nor does some big car with a big engine....the idea of compactness and an overabundance of power is key to any rational concept of a "muscle car" I think.

Example: If everything is called beautiful, than really nothing is beautiful, because the word has been rendered meaningless.

rabidbowtie · December 2000

Sports Sedan ... I have heard that term.

"Liberal" meaning categorize them all as subsets, as opposed to classifying them as some purists do under musclecar, ponycar and sportscar. I've had people call my El Caminos as just about everything (including some rather unflattering adjectives).

Take the 1970 LS-6 SS454 El Camino. If you equip one with the same performance options as the LS-6 Chevelle (that's key), it will run on it's door. Hotrod proved that by reportedly running a 13.44 in 1970. Does anyone ever bring this car up when discussing the top fastest musclecars? No! Top fastest trucks? Hell No! If you call it (and it's sister GMC Sprint) a truck (like the DMV), you will suffer the ire of both GMC Syclone and Ford Lightning owners. The Syclone owners want to be known as the fastest GM trucks. Ford Lightning owners and Ford fans will outright vilify you. They have laid claim to the fastest truck title. If you include the El Camino, that title goes down the toilet, so to speak.

MuscleCar? MuscleTruck? Here comes the hate mail! lol ...

Mr_Shiftright · December 2000

The "problem" with the El Camino is that there WAS a Chevelle to compare it to, and for most people, the latter is a more attractive package overall. As for muscle trucks, they have their limited market, but really, a truck is a truck is a truck no matter how you dress it.

eitherone · January 2001

I've been working on my 70 Camaro that I just purchased and found out why the guy before me didn't attach the speedometer cable to the transmission. The cable connection is very close to the shifter linkage and when it(the cable) is installed, I can't shift back into Reverse, 2nd or 4th. It's a Saganaw 4spd. I wish I could say that it is a Muncie but that will have to be a future investment. If anyone has encountered this and knows how to resolve it or work around it, I would appreciate any advice.

eitherone · January 2001

Oops, Saginaw....not Saganaw.

Mr_Shiftright · January 2001

You can have any length speedo cable made up by a speedo company....so you could route around the problem that way, seems to me.

jerrym3 · February 2001

Anyone have, remember, or care to comment on the Merc Cycone CJ428? I had a 68 Cyclone GT fastback with the 302-4V (didn't want the 390 for fear of being blown off by the smaller block Chevies). I thought the car was one of the best styled vehicles of it's time, especially after GM took the gorgeous 67 styling of the 442's and GTO's and replaced it with the, in my opinion, not so pretty 68's. I missed the CJ428 by a few months. While working for Ford at the Terboro, NJ, parts depot, I saw about 50 yellow or orange 69 fastbacks waiting to head to NY City for a NY Knick promotion. Quite a site. Side question: I have 58 square bird that uses Type A trans fluid. What is today's equivalent?

speedshift · February 2001

They were nicely styled and the instrument panel had a classy look. The Cobra Jet was one of the all-time street engines. The 390 was a slug in stock form but I had one with an aftermarket cam, Holley and Edelbrock that was stout. Just needed a little tuning.

andre1969 · February 2001

would be high performance, high power car that's also available in more sedate family versions.

Remember, the first muscle cars were the Chrysler 300 Letter Series, the Plymouth Fury's, DeSoto Adventurers, Dodge D-500's, Impala SS.

Size doesn't necessarily determine a muscle car, as they were available as compacts (Dart GTS, Nova SS, etc), Midsize (Coronet R/T, Roadrunner, GTO, Cyclone, Talladega, etc), and, to a much lesser extent, full-size (Impala SS, Catalina 2+2, Marauder, etc)

I guess to me, a muscle car still has some practicality to it, versus a "pony" car, the Mustang/Camaro/Challenger/Barracuda crowd...where the car was built all for style and less for any practicality. Some of the earlier Barracudas could be pretty practical, compared to a Camaro or Mustang, though.

I used to have people call my '69 Dart GT 225 a muscle car, and the sad thing is, compared to what they were driving at the time, it was!

-Andre

Mr_Shiftright · February 2001

If you want to be really accurate about it, the term "muscle car" only applies to a mid-size car with a big engine stuffed into it. This is how it first appears in print, referring to the GTO and similar cars (Tempest with 389 V8). The term "muscle car" was unknown prior to the GTO, so even though earlier cars had "muscle" it is kind of "revisionist history" to call a Chrsyler 300 a muscle car. Also, for the same reason, large family sedans don't qualify as they are large cars with large engines, also outside the definition.

I'm not bringing this up to say anyone is "wrong", but only to keep the term "pure" or as clear as possible. If anyone can call anything a muscle car, then the term loses all meaning...suddenly, as we liberalize our definitions more and more, Hyundais with K&N filters will become muscle cars because Eddie in Iowa says so.

speedshift · February 2001

You got a problem with that? Hyundais rule!

I think a big part of the musclecar definition is that they were relatively affordable and easy to drive on the street. You didn't have to be Briggs Cunningham to buy one, and they didn't foul their plugs and shake your fillings out at a stoplight.

Chrysler 300s and even 409s were expensive cars--certainly the engines were--and highly tuned, happier on the track than the street.

A big part of the GTO formula was a big engine with manageable carburetion--single four-barrel or three very simple 2-barrels--and a warm but very streetable hydraulic cam. Pontiac had some great cams in those days, including the "068" they used with trips and the Ram Air III. The heads were also upgrades over the standard 389. And that was about it. Those engines weren't built to rev, and that kept the cost and complexity down.

Ford was a great example of how not to do it. First their top Fairlane engine was the 427/425, way too much engine for the mass market. The base engine was basically the same 390 they used in Galaxies, too little engine. They finally got it right with the 428 CJ.

speedshift · February 2001

Just remembered a story that makes my point about what makes a sucessful musclecar.

I used to hang out with/bother a guy that sold and restored GTOs. He had a customer, just a high-school kid, who got the GTO religion and asked him to build a world-beater 389. It had tri-power, 400 heads--and a solid-lifer Isky cam, a street/strip cam.

I was there when the kid took delivery, and even with four of us in the car it was seriously quick, but no quicker around the block than a stock tri-power. It idled like it had a vacuum leak and, as the dealer said, "of course it'll foul the plugs".

A few minutes later I passed the kid sitting at a stoplight and he looked like he'd been kicked in the groin. He knew he's crossed the line from musclecar to hot rod, from just enough to too much, and pretty much ruined the car for cruising and going to school and work.

It's my theory that musclecars were kind of like SUVs are now, more about image than reality. Not many SUV owners take their truck off road, and they wouldn't be happy living with the compromises it takes to make a truck a real off-roader. Not many musclecar owners actually raced at the strip, or would have been happy with the kind of car it took to win consistently at the strip.

Mr_Shiftright · February 2001

Oh, they were ALL about image, but they looked mean and sounded BAD and some of them went down the road (as long as you steered them straight!) pretty darn good....like Harleys today....not a great motorcycle compared to most, but great image...and that can be very satisfying....not everyone wants to REALLY race or hang on the pegs at 150 mph on a two-wheeler. Racing is expensive and it breaks things.

speedshift · February 2001

They weren't ALL about image. Some of us were in it for the music, man. The feel of fine machinery--stop laughing, Shiftright. You just didn't have the right GTO. Really. Although I DID feel more manly driving a goat, but I felt the same way driving the MGB too.

Mr_Shiftright · February 2001

LOL---I did fine with the "music" part and can even accept that the cars weren't all about image, but the "fine machinery" part did make me spit coffee out my nose, yes....that would not have been my choice of words for a GTO!

speedshift · February 2001

"the feel of fine marketing"?

Maybe it's for the best you didn't get musclecar religion. Nigel would be wearing a Your Brain on Ford t-shirt, and you'd be writing musclecar articles using phrases like "pavement ripping" and "asphalt pounding". The horror...

Mr_Shiftright · February 2001

how about "neck-snapping"...funny I don't see more of those "collision collars" on people driving old musclecars. The vocabulary of auto journalists can be tedious at times....."the gearshift fell readily to hand..."

jerrym3 · February 2001

Back in message 228, I asked for the eqivalent of tran fluid Type A. Nobdy knows today's equivalent?

Mr_Shiftright · February 2001

I really don't know enough to advise you with confidence...call up a good transmission shop for a modern substitute, would be my advice. I suspect they will tell you to use any modern fluid, but maybe their hands-on experience would suggest another alternative. Please do let us know and we won't be so ignorant next time! Good question, though...

tdugovic · March 2001

I agree the GTO was considered to be the first Muscle car.

However, go to a car show and look at the classics you see there (25 years or older) and the antiques (30 plus years).

Many of these cars are termed "hot rods" yet that name originally applied to t-buckets, etc. that were modified to "get up and move".

So, many of todays hotrods and muscle cars are simply a car that came with a v-8 and had potential to "flat get with it" when the hammer was down.

www.gmforums.com is another good place for answers to questions about trans oils, mods for power, or general discussion of GM CArs, trucks as well.

Tim

Mr_Shiftright · March 2001

Well, we'll let the uninformed use "hot rod" and "muscle car" carelessly, but we know better, right?

speedshift · May 2001

This is all off the top of my head. The T-37 was just a new name for the Tempest line. T-37 had been the factory code for the Tempest, and I guess they decided "Tempest" was getting a little tired so they went with T-37. (Before Tempest was a car line, it had also been the name of their hi-perf 389s.)

The budget musclecar was the GT-37, standard with the 350-2v (exciting!) and 3-speed with floor shift. I think this was 1970, and by then there wasn't a Pontiac 350-4v. The next engine up was the GTO 400, and I think any of the optional GTO engines were also available on the GT-37. One of the eastern musclecar mags did a test of a '71 GT-37 400 back then and they were a little underwhelmed. As Ezrapon says, by then the Pontiac 400 intermediate really wasn't the hot set-up.

The first Pontiac budget musclecar was a one-off built by Royal Pontiac and tested I think in Hot Rod, a '68 Le Mans with a massaged 350-4v with one of the GTO cams (068?), 4-speed and 3.90s. Obviously intended to compete with the Road Runner (and the Cutlass W-31) but never went into production. The Pontiac 350 had decent breathing but the long stroke (same as the 400 stroke) kept it from competing with the better smallblocks. Besides, smallblock musclecars never really caught on.

What killed the GTO initially was weight and expense, and maybe being number one for a few years--they sold over 100k in '67. What finally finished the GTO was what finished musclecars in general--rising insurance rates, crude emissions controls and just a shift in consumer tastes. Most musclecars were bought as image cars, much like SUVS now, and that only lasts a while. The next trend in intermediates was "personal luxury" and that's why Pontiac was into that in a big way with the redesigned GP, and did very well with it.

andre1969 · May 2001

Just looked in my auto encyclopedia, and, sure enought, the T-37 is listed under 1971, only, available as a 2-door pillared coupe for $2,747, a 2-door hardtop for $2,807, or a 4-door sedan for $2,795. All three are priced about $130 below their Lemans counterparts. So I think you're right, Speedshift that the T-37 was just a renamed Tempest.

Just to show Pontiac's shift towards personal luxury, the '71 midsize lineup was broken down into T-37, Lemans, Lemans Sport, GTO, and Judge. For '72, it became simply Lemans and Luxury Lemans. Lemans Sport became a $164 option package and GTO was a $344 option package. They also had a package called GT for $231.

By that time, the Pontiac 350 was listed at 250 hp gross for 1971, 160 net for '72. Shows how inflated gross hp was, but I think GM also cut compression that year, which would throw things off.

Another interesting bit of trivia...for '72, the Ventura had a Chevy 307 as the standard V-8 in 49 states, but in California it had the Pontiac 350. Maybe this is an indication that the Pontiac engine was a cleaner burning engine than the Chevy?

-Andre

speedshift · May 2001

'71 was the year GM cut compression but I'm sure '72 had even leaner jettings and more retarded ignition. Then in '73 they went with exhaust gas recirculation and things got very bad.

BTW GTO sales were about 96k in '66, their best year.

Don't know why the 350 had an easier time with California's smog regs. Might be because a small bore/long stroke engine has an easier time with NOX--I forget why now, something about the combustion chamber being smaller relative to the size of the cylinder I think.

andre1969 · May 2001

According to my auto encyclopedia, the 350 went from 265 hp in '70 to 260 in '71. So I guess that was a result of the compression cut? Some of the cuts were harder further up the scale, although I'm surprised that for '71 a 307 with 235 hp is listed (for the Ventura II) I guess that was a 4-bbl? I know the 2-bbl only had 200 gross/130 net (or less, depending on year).

I heard somewhere that once the bore of an engine gets over 4.00 inches, that it gets very difficult to get it to burn clean. But then again, the Ford 302 had a 4.00" bore, and was used up until very recently, so I guess it's possible!

-Andre

Mr_Shiftright · May 2001

You can thank computers, of course, for saving big block engines. They'd be history now without microprocessors to precisely control fuel delivery and spark timing.

speedshift · May 2001

The 350 in my '73 Ventura had a 7:1 compression ratio. That's right, 7:1. Suddenly it's 1949. Tough to make power with that kind of ratio. I could have run it on kerosene.

ezrapon · May 2001

I agree the 68 and 69 pontiacs (all models) were beautiful and ahead of their time. What they were sniffing when they designed the 70 models is beyond me. The firebird's new body was nice, the GTO got fat, but was still decent looking and the engine selection was better than the years before.
The Cat and the Bonneville got just plain ugly. At a car show I saw a tempest with a special designation maybe a gt 37, I can't remember, but it had the nasty 455 with all the goodies it was a 70,71,or 72 model. The Pontiac guys at the show raved about it's power and how rare it was. In 1972, all GM cars changed thier HP rating system from the fly wheel to the rear wheels. The exact same 71 400 @ 350 HP would be 290 HP in 72, due only to the rating system. In the same context, a 345 HP 2001 vette would rate out at around 400 HP in the 60's. Make no mistake about it, with computers, fuel injection, and tire technology, we are living in the golden years of performance right now. It won't last. I suffered in the late 70's and 80's for performance. Ford and chevy are better than ever right now, but again the writing is on the wall and it spells the end of performance. The camaro/firebird demise is the first nail in the coffin right behind the stealth, 300zx, RX7, and SS impala.

Mr_Shiftright · May 2001

Yeah, some people didn't have to live through the retched 70s and 80s like we did. I agree, this is a golden age for cars.

But I think performance won't go away...it'll just change....you need less horsepower these days because cars are lighter and handling and tires so much better. But your average showroom hot turbo coupe will beat most old muscle cars senseless except for a few terrifying big blocks...and even then, many ordinary modern sedans can outrun an old Hemi on top speed.

ezrapon · May 2001

But, take away the camaro/firebird... the over priced vette and viper, and that pretty much kills everything close to my heart. The SSEi at around 30K is the end of the line for GM... the STS caddy is on its way out. I was in San Francisco last week, premium closing in on 2.50 per gallon. This spells trouble for performance. It is funny, my big sedan would beat 90% of the old muscle cars. I hate front wheel drive, but man does it hook up with the 17 inch eagles. My 87 T-Type turbo regal (now long gone) would probably beat 99% of the 60's best... with a 6 banger... they never should have quit building that engine. It was the only bright spot of the 80's.

Classic Musclecars

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles