do you consider 1975-81 camaros, muscle cars?
In the Staging Lanes
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 64
From:
RE: do you consider 1975-81 camaros, muscle cars?
ORIGINAL: jason7504
ok well it might not be a factory muscle car but it can be a custom muscle car then.
ok well it might not be a factory muscle car but it can be a custom muscle car then.
In the Staging Lanes
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 43
From:
RE: do you consider 1975-81 camaros, muscle cars?
A Camaro is a muscle car and will always stay a muscle car.
2 door coupe + RWD + V8 + American Badge + Legendary Title (Camaro) = Muscle Car.
I consider my Z28 a muscle car and so do all my friends.
2 door coupe + RWD + V8 + American Badge + Legendary Title (Camaro) = Muscle Car.
I consider my Z28 a muscle car and so do all my friends.
Thread Starter
|
3rd Gear Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 957
From: Vancouver, WA
RE: do you consider 1975-81 camaros, muscle cars?
bamaro, no a yugo cant be one lol because it doesn't have a V8 and wasn't made to go fast like muscle cars were lol..
but a camaro is wayyy different 
but a camaro is wayyy different
In the Staging Lanes
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 64
From:
RE: do you consider 1975-81 camaros, muscle cars?
ORIGINAL: JRs72RS
The term Muscle Car was originally in reference to pony cars that Detroit had stuffed monster engines into. The muscle was the power to weight ratio. It was not intended to include any full or mid-size bodies cars. Although, later there were mid-size entries (Chevelle and GS) in the group.
cplthomas: excellent point, that site didn't list COPOs. Also, what about non-SS Chevelle, there were cars produced with big block and no SS badges. Impala was NEVER considered a muscle car, not even with the 409. BTW Never trust a site that cannot use spellcheck!
Jason: Sorry buddy but my vote is no. My car is a 72 and in strict adherance to the definition it is not a muscle car.
The term Muscle Car was originally in reference to pony cars that Detroit had stuffed monster engines into. The muscle was the power to weight ratio. It was not intended to include any full or mid-size bodies cars. Although, later there were mid-size entries (Chevelle and GS) in the group.
cplthomas: excellent point, that site didn't list COPOs. Also, what about non-SS Chevelle, there were cars produced with big block and no SS badges. Impala was NEVER considered a muscle car, not even with the 409. BTW Never trust a site that cannot use spellcheck!
Jason: Sorry buddy but my vote is no. My car is a 72 and in strict adherance to the definition it is not a muscle car.
February 2009 ROTM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 411
ROTM Winner's Club
RE: do you consider 1975-81 camaros, muscle cars?
ORIGINAL: Bamaro
I thought the term was first used to describe the GTO and later similar mid sizes from Chevy, Plymouth, Ford etc.
I thought the term was first used to describe the GTO and later similar mid sizes from Chevy, Plymouth, Ford etc.
1st Gear Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 138
From:
RE: do you consider 1975-81 camaros, muscle cars?
not just because i have a 79 but just to join the conversation, i don't know much about the history but i know that a strong engine = muscle car right? well true my car only came with 170 HP and that is rather patheric... emissions!!... oh well, but what about this? you remeber? "hp sells cars, torque wins races..." right? again, even tho its only 260 punds of torque i know thats not all too impresive, specially agianst the older camaros... but trust me it is more than enougth to beat most of those cars out on the street, i mean even with its 130K miles still runs pretty good! may not be as strong as and early 70's or 60's but stronger than most cars right? so this plus the other muscle car features wouldn't they also be muscle cars? ...
BackseatBob
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 561
From: El Paso
RE: do you consider 1975-81 camaros, muscle cars?
Potential doesn't make a muscle car. A muscle car should already have a lot of kick, not just "potential."
JR, I have to agree wtih you... a super car is NOT a muscle car, I'd have to go with your definition of a super car.
JR, I have to agree wtih you... a super car is NOT a muscle car, I'd have to go with your definition of a super car.