Author Topic: Muscle Car Wars (Read 785 times)

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #15 on:** July 13, 2004, 09:24:16 PM »

IMnsHO, "Muscle Cars" were made during the 60's and 70's. That era is long gone.

The closest things you find today are perhaps the SVT Cobras and the new GTO.

I'd lump the Corvette and the Viper in there, but they're more 'sports car' than muscle car in my mind.

Hell, there are pickup trucks out there that fit the bill better - Ford's Lightning and the Ram SRT-10. What American wouldnt want a 500HP juggernaut?

J_A_B · « **Reply #16 on:** July 13, 2004, 09:41:44 PM »

By image I mean the image of a Mazda 4-banger doesn't fit with what my brain thinks of when someone says the phrase "muscle car" (Actually no new cars do). Just a personal opinion of mine and nothing more, and I freely admit that most people these days don't share my tastes in automobiles.

By modern standards it proably could call itself one. But I don't care much for the modern standards.

Well....at least my wife has seen the light. She used to like little "trendy" sardine-can cars like New Beetles and Mini Coopers.....but now she loves her Grand Marquis to death, trendy or not.

If you wonder what I drive, go here:

Roadmonster

Mine looks identical to the one in the picture except the hubcaps are different (I have aluminum rims).

I view it as utterly superior to any daily-driver currently on the market for less than 40 grand. And yes I have whitewalls.

J_A_B

RedTop · « **Reply #17 on:** July 13, 2004, 10:39:35 PM »

<----This is the Best American Muscle Ever....Sports Car yes..But it do have some Muscle as well:D

wklink · « **Reply #18 on:** July 13, 2004, 11:47:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Saurdaukar
IMnsHO, "Muscle Cars" were made during the 60's and 70's. That era is long gone.

The closest things you find today are perhaps the SVT Cobras and the new GTO.

I'd lump the Corvette and the Viper in there, but they're more 'sports car' than muscle car in my mind.

Hell, there are pickup trucks out there that fit the bill better - Ford's Lightning and the Ram SRT-10. What American wouldnt want a 500HP juggernaut?

I don't know. Some the newer Dodge Hemi powered cars (that station wagon looking thing) look pretty interesting.

I don't see a big resurgance of the old thumpin Hemi Cudas or 454 Chevelles but there are some pretty exciting V8 powered rear drive throw back machines. I would call the Vette a muscle car still, it is a lot sportier than the 60's and 70's models but it still is a thumping V8 powered rear drive machine, the basic need for any true muscle car.

Still, for true tire squealing, non cornering pray you have a few miles to stop nostalgia the 60's and 70's are the only way to go.

Wadke · « **Reply #19 on:** July 14, 2004, 12:09:03 AM »

Mmmm Muscle Car

SFRT - Frenchy · « **Reply #20 on:** July 14, 2004, 12:48:05 AM »

i had the chance to run a Dodge Viper GTS 1996. It still had the muscle car feeling, like Laz described last week.

Raw power, vibrations filling up your body with excitment, uncomfortable as heck. Like if there's a direct link between your engine and the road.

I was offered a ride in a 2003 porsche GTS ... wohoo man, this thing go. I ride in a 2001 Corvette, fun time there too. But both were not to be compared with the viper, even if the porsche performances are about the same. Accelerates fast, cruises fast, but everything is smoooooooooth, don't have all those vibrations to keep you awake:cool:

SFRT - Frenchy · « **Reply #21 on:** July 14, 2004, 12:49:04 AM »

wakle you should play Grand Theft Auto vice City:D

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #22 on:** July 14, 2004, 12:49:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Saurdaukar
IMnsHO, "Muscle Cars" were made during the 60's and 70's. That era is long gone.

The closest things you find today are perhaps the SVT Cobras and the new GTO.

I'd lump the Corvette and the Viper in there, but they're more 'sports car' than muscle car in my mind.

Hell, there are pickup trucks out there that fit the bill better - Ford's Lightning and the Ram SRT-10. What American wouldnt want a 500HP juggernaut?

Every car you mentioned is WAY more expensive (relative to the rest of the market) than the classic muscle cars were back in the day. That was the beauty of those cars, that they weren't much more expensive than your basic family car.

J_A_B · « **Reply #23 on:** July 14, 2004, 01:33:37 AM »

I think that illustrates the basic prolem with the auto industry, actually.

Once upon a time the average car buyer could afford something NICE

Now the average buyer gets a tin can Honda or Mazda or something uninspired like a Taurus (still little more than a tin can) Yeah some of em have turbos....but then it's just a turbo sardine can.

I have yet to get into a small car that is actually NICE, or that is ANYWHERE near as comfortable as my Buick. I tend to think people who like this junk they're selling nowdays accept it only because they've forgotten/never experienced the good ones.

Heck....I was happy with a Mercury Topaz until I drove something better.

Now? I went to a showroom a couple weeks ago with a buddy who was looking at Accords.....I could not get over what a complete piece of crap they are for 20 grand. Friend ended up getting a Chevy which was really no better.

I dunno what I'll do when the Buick is ready for the junkyard...hopefully that isn't for a long time.

J_A_B

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #24 on:** July 14, 2004, 01:36:59 AM »

Well, I like small nimble cars. I want sharp handling and chassis rigidity over a smooth ride. I've sat in a lot of expensive cars at car shows and I'll take the Pepsi challenge with my seats vs. theirs any old day. So I'm loving it. Technically, today's cars are so far beyond the 60's (or even the 80's) that it's not even funny.
But other than the SRT-4, the Big 3 have abandoned the old school muscle car demographic. Kinda sad.
I haven't ridden in a Buick like yours but my friend's dad has a Cadillac that I believe has the same chassis and motor. Sweet car.
I get the Grand Marquis a lot as a rental. Not a bad car at all.

J_A_B · « **Reply #25 on:** July 14, 2004, 01:51:41 AM »

Technically, today's cars are so far beyond the 60's (or even the 80's) that it's not even funny.

That is true. Even the Hondas that I poke so much fun at last FAR longer with less upkeep than older cars.

And...honestly...I don't hate the little cars as much as I claim. I just wouldn't want one as a daily-driver and--as you pointed out--there aren't a lot of options unfortunately (hence my pointed irritation). Something small and nimble like a Miata can be loads of fun to take a spin from time to time.

Were you comfortable in the Grand MArquis you drove Funked? I didn't get one for myself promarily due to the fact that the driver's seat is just too damned small and pedals are in the wrong place for my feet. It fits the wifey like a glove (a damn big glove).

J_A_B

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #26 on:** July 14, 2004, 02:29:21 AM »

I fit pretty good in the Grand Marquis. I think the ones I drove had the power adjustable pedals. I'd rather have buckets than the bench seat though. If Mercury had put a big block or supercharged engine in the Marauder they might have sold me one.
I can't stand the Taurus/Sable. Because of the slope of the windshield I have to recline the seat really far. They drive pretty nice though, especially the ones with the 24V motor.

Redd · « **Reply #27 on:** July 14, 2004, 02:46:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Saurdaukar
IMnsHO, "Muscle Cars" were made during the 60's and 70's. That era is long gone.

The closest things you find today are perhaps the SVT Cobras and the new GTO.

I'd lump the Corvette and the Viper in there, but they're more 'sports car' than muscle car in my mind.

Hell, there are pickup trucks out there that fit the bill better - Ford's Lightning and the Ram SRT-10. What American wouldnt want a 500HP juggernaut?

How is the new GTO going over there ? a success ? or too early to tell ?

We know it here as the Monaro - a 70's muscle car classic name by GM over here

Westy · « **Reply #28 on:** July 14, 2004, 08:42:27 AM »

"the image of a Mazda 4-banger doesn't fit with what my brain thinks of when someone says the phrase "muscle car" (Actually no new cars do)"

Ditto. "Pocket rocket" is the best term I can think of them with.

lazs2 · « **Reply #29 on:** July 14, 2004, 09:00:07 AM »

well.... the melted look doesn't lend itself to the term "muscle car" in my opinion. Nor do little tiny motors.. the buick grand national set the "muscle car" guys back a bit tho in "the day" They wouldn't even call it a muscle car.

Now.. I know funked... he is a great guy and knows a lot more about the new cars and race cars than I do. He came over and we drove my car. It is probly classic muscle. it is very impractical and is more of a "rush" car than a nimble (i did replace the steering box tho funked) corner carver.

It will go fast and stop fast and go around corners with at least a camaro... I have done it.. but... It is a workout. your ggirlfriend isn't gonna be able to do it and... if you drive modern cars you aren't gonna be able to drive mine well.... the Healey will do it's level best rto kill you while you are trying to look competent.

my cars don't get the job done with sophistication... even tho there are a lot of sophisticated parts hiding in there... they do it by bullying the road into submission but... they are not easy to start or drive or corner in and they don't give you a delicate feel of the road... they get lousy milage and shake your fillings out... they don't have a radio. They have the aerodynamics of a brick but they batter their way through the airstraem.

The new cars are better in every way but the intangible.

funked drove my car maybe he can explain better than I can.

oh... and funky... I bought a Lincoln Town car (oimped out marquis) for getting the grandbabv and girlfriend around in... like driving a lazyboy but it actually stops pretty well with 4 wheel discs.

lazs