"The 10 Worst Muscle Cars Of All Time"

[Fleet 500]

I think we have had all this in several other threads....let's concentrate on the question at hand...the 10 worst muscle cars...and that was certainly not the Benz....

That's because didn't make any muscle cars.

[harddrivin1le]

I was referring to the Car Life road test... know the one I'm talking about?

Even those tended to run faster than most customer cars.

As HOT ROD noted, "Magazine test cars [not just HOT ROD'S but magazine cars IN GENERAL] invariably ran somewhat faster than actual production models because they were tested for the most part in a near perfect state of tune and many of the cars were partially BLUEPRINTED by manufacturers in order to impress the media."

http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/HOTRRODMUSCLE1.JPG

Are you really naive enough to think "Car Life" somehow magically managed to get TRUE production cars even though most of their cars were TEST FLEET cars that were tested by several other magazines? Their test cars (and a few other mags) were RELATIVELY stock because the magazine itself didn't further modify them.

Many muscle car enthusiasts would strongly disagree.

Many "musclecar owners" are liars and fools who refuse to accept progress, are consequently living in a bygone era and will resort to virtually any tactic in order to promote what amounts to their religion.

[harddrivin1le]

That's because didn't make any muscle cars.

Define "musclecar."

Is my new Acura TL Type S (~ 14.1 second @ 101 MPH 1/4 mile bone stock) a "musclecar?"

[Fleet 500]

Define "musclecar."

Is my new Acura TL Type S (~ 14.1 second @ 101 MPH 1/4 mile bone stock) a "musclecar?"

Mid-sized, 1964-'72 American car, big engine, affordable and a 1/4 mile of less than 15 and 1/2 seconds.

[Fleet 500]

Even those tended to run faster than most customer cars.

As HOT ROD noted, "Magazine test cars [not just HOT ROD'S but magazine cars IN GENERAL] invariably ran somewhat faster than actual production models because they were tested for the most part in a near perfect state of tune and many of the cars were partially BLUEPRINTED by manufacturers in order to impress the media."

http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/HOTRRODMUSCLE1.JPG

Are you really naive enough to think "Car Life" somehow magically managed to get TRUE production cars even though most of their cars were TEST FLEET cars that were tested by several other magazines? Their test cars (and a few other mags) were RELATIVELY stock because the magazine itself didn't further modify them.

Excuses, excuses. Why do you hate classic muscle cars so much?

Many "musclecar owners" are liars and fools who refuse to accept progress, are consequently living in a bygone era and will resort to virtually any tactic in order to promote what amounts to their religion

Many of them accept progress; they also realize that the '60s/early '70s muscle cars had a character all their own. They probably also wonder what is behind your rage against '60s/early '70s muscle cars.

[harddrivin1le]

Excuses, excuses. Why do you hate classic muscle cars so much?

Because they are the holy grail of naive fools who are living in a bygone era and who choose to substitute myth and legend for objective fact and who often times run down modern performance cars through sheer ignorance (e.g. thinking the old "gross" HP ratings had any real meaning and were somehow comparable to today's net figures).

Mid-sized, 1964-'72 American car, big engine, affordable and a 1/4 mile of less than 15 and 1/2 seconds.

In other words, any car that has REAL BRAKES, sound structural rigidity, modern suspension geometry, tight, accurate steering, a modern engine with state-of-the-art cylinder heads and an over-drive transmission can't be a "muscle car."

What about an old car (say, a Chevelle SS 350) that runs 15.6 - 15.7. Is that a muscle car? It must not be, since your cut-off point is 15.5.

[nota]

Mid-sized, 1964-'72 American car, big engine, affordable and a 1/4 mile of less than 15 and 1/2 seconds.

Explain why the Muscle Car genre must exclusively belong to "Mid sized, 1964-'72 American car"

Justify to us why is this original-type vehicle (below) should not be considered a Muscle Car?

YouTube

[Kitdy]

What about an old car (say, a Chevelle SS 350) that runs 15.6 - 15.7. Is that a muscle car? It must not be, since your cut-off point is 15.5.

I would consider those older smaller engined cars muscle cars as well.

If Australian cars were similar, then I don't see why they can't be muscle cars either.

[Falcon500]

Mid-sized, 1964-'72 American car, big engine, affordable and a 1/4 mile of less than 15 and 1/2 seconds.

Then why did you say the studebaker lark,cruiser.hawk and avanti a musclecar? it was all of the above even if it only had a 5 litre motor.

[nota]

If Australian cars were similar, then I don't see why they can't be muscle cars either.

Thank you for your input, and seeing that you're Canadian ..

one of 288 Canadian made GTO Judge's made in Oshawa Ontario, and Built in December 1969 as there was a large calling for them to be built and Pontiac got the Oshawa Ontario plant to punch some out for them. It is the first year they made the GTO in Canada

The Judge: 1970 Ram Air III GTO Judge - Kamloops, British Columbia

I would take some convincing to be persuaded that a Canadian-manufactured GTO like this above '69 Judge is NOT a bona fide Muscle Car

Btw the US, Canada & Australia are not the only countries than produced this type of vehicle

[henk4]

Explain why the Muscle Car genre must exclusively belong to "Mid sized, 1964-'72 American car"

Justify to us why is this original-type vehicle (below) should not be considered a Muscle Car?

YouTube

Looking at the video any muscle car definition should also include: "great difficulty in transforming power into forward motion"

[harddrivin1le]

Looking at the video any muscle car definition should also include: "great difficulty in transforming power into forward motion"

There really isn't a whole lot of truth in that statement. In most cases properly optioned (i.e. limited slip differential with sensible axle ratio) "muscle cars" put their power down pretty well.

The real issue was simply that most of them didn't make a whole lot of real (as opposed to "advertised") power.

~ 350 SAE NET HP represented about the max, excluding a couple of very rare example (e.g. L88 and ZL1 Chevys, which weren't intended for highway use in the first place and still couldn't break the 380 SAE NET HP mark in their "as delivered" state).

Most "muscle cars" couldn't put more than 200 HP down at the rear wheels. Assuming a limited slip differential, the tires of the era were generally fully capable of harnessing that level of power.

I've driven/rode in several examples and can tell you first hand that the alleged traction "problems" are just another part of the muscle car myth.

[henk4]

There really isn't a whole lot of truth in that statement. In most cases properly optioned (i.e. limited slip differential with sensible axle ratio) "muscle cars" put their power down pretty well.

The real issue was simply that most of them didn't make a whole lot of real (as opposed to "advertised") power.

~ 350 SAE NET HP represented about the max, excluding a couple of very rare example (e.g. L88 and ZL1 Chevys, which weren't intended for highway use in the first place and still couldn't break the 380 SAE NET HP mark in their "as delivered" state).

Most "muscle cars" couldn't put more than 200 HP down at the rear wheels. Assuming a limited slip differential, the tires of the era were generally fully capable of harnessing that level of power.

I've driven/rode in several examples and can tell you first hand that the alleged traction "problems" are just another part of the muscle car myth.

"traction problems" is an alternative way of saying "burning rubber" which seems to be the nirvana of some the fanboys

Anyway the Monaro on the video definitely had traction problems (or a incapable driver...)

[Kitdy]

Thank you for your input, and seeing that you're Canadian ..


The Judge: 1970 Ram Air III GTO Judge - Kamloops, British Columbia

I would take some convincing to be persuaded that a Canadian-manufactured GTO like this above '69 Judge is NOT a bona fide Muscle Car

Btw the US, Canada & Australia are not the only countries than produced this type of vehicle

I never knew they made GTOs in Oshawa. It's only a 20 minute drive there from my house.

[harddrivin1le]

"traction problems" is an alternative way of saying "burning rubber" which seems to be the nirvana of some the fanboys

True, but most of that is attributable to abusive driving (e.g. dumping the clutch at 5,000 RPM) and poor hardware choices (e.g. open differential) as opposed to raw power.

My '99 LS1 powered 1LE Camaro didn't spin the tires much - it just WENT due to its combination of power (~ 360 SAE NET with Mods), weight (3,380 pounds with a full tank of gas), differential (Torsen), a suspension that yielded excellent straight line traction and favorable weight distribution.

I could find a bone stock 1969 Camaro that made less than half the power, yet could "burn rubber" (one tire with an open diff.) better than my '99, yet the '99 would suck its headlights out without even trying.