Gbodies are hot! Says PUI interiors

[Brother Al]

Agreed... you don't hear it much anymore, but originally the classifications were a little more straightforward...
- Sports Cars... ala the Vette, Spitfire, Porshe... etc
- Pony Cars... named after the Mushtang, including the Firebird, Camaro, 'Cuda, Challenger, & Javelin.
- Muscle Cars... Any car your Grandma would drive that was available with a V8, RWD, & had a "Performance Variant".

The vast majority of Chevelle SS & Chevelle Malibu SS cars on the road today are in fact, originally Chevelle 300s, Deluxe 300s, or Chevelle Malibus with Straight 6's, 283's, 307's, & 327's (normal 327 wasnt impressive). Cars that people rebuilt, stuffed a real motor into, and added "SS" logos to... Dunno how many times I've listened to owners say their Super Sport is all original, only to see sweep gauges and idiot lights in the dash, along with a few other subtle tell tale pieces missing.

My point, very few people would refute that a "Base" '70-72 Chevelle is a Muscle Car Right?... but lets get a bit closer to the truth here... that same Chevelle came equipped with a Straight 6 or 307 Chevy engine, a Powerglide trans, non-F41 suspension, & a peg-leg 10 Bolt rear and had all it could do to haul its sorry *ss out on the highway at 55mph.... so is it still a Muscle Car?

As I stated above, my '72 Chevelle Malibu 350/TH350/10 Bolt posi 3:42's was not considered by "The Car Gurus" as being a Muscle car and few car shows accepted '68/69-up cars into them. My God, all Chevy Novas were considered JUNKs... you NEVER saw them in a car show... except maybe an early Nova SS... My buddy had a 69 Nova SS 396... legit car, had some rot in the quarters... nowhere near mint... bought it for $700 in '92.... Nobody ever thought it'd be worth much, except for the engine... but today the Nova is considered a Muscle Car, despite the fact that it is essentially a '67-69 F Body chassis without most of the better underpinnings and they were the cheapest thing on Chevy's lot, next to the Vega.... Comparable to today's Chevy Cruze.

The "Car Gurus" then, are no different than these *ss-hats on TV today, different people, same attitudes, same circumstances.... ie... the guy that has a Minty '66 Vette & a new BMW, more money than brains, a garage that most real mechanics could only dream of, & gets media attention because he has the money & influence to call the shots...AND the guy rarely/never turns a wrench.

To me, a "Muscle Car" is any RWD car that Joe Six-Pack can buy that he can stuff a V8 into because it was optional from the manufacturer.... same was true back in the days prior to 1964, before some "Guru" pushed their definition of "Muscle Car" in the 80's... my Grandfather is 83 years old, fought in Korea, when he came back, he bought a used '51 Pontiac which he raced and also drove to work....

 

[Clone TIE Pilot]

Well G bodies aren't really muscle cars, they are more like luxury cars.

x2 they were sold new as family cars.

So were the 64-72 'true' muscle cars.

A G-Body is nothing more than a newer version of the 64-72 A-Bodys. They're all nothing more than midsized GM cars that came in various trim from a stripped down granny car to sporty performance ( though the actual performance lacked of course ).

With that being said there is no one true definition of what a muscle car really is so debating whether some G-Body's were 'true' muscle cars is kinda pointless IMO.

That is a red herring. All G body coupes were designd to be mid level luxury/family cars regardless of their model and package. They were not intended for high performance. About the only G body model intended for performance at all is the GNX which had alot of post factory modifications and even that has flaws. The bodies and frames are weak and flimsy and not designed to take more than 400 HP safely in stock form. The front suspension is bad by even 1950s standards. G bodies are just mid level luxury/family cars gearheads hotrod now.

 

[DoubleV]

All G body coupes were designd to be mid level luxury/family cars regardless of their model and package.

If you believe that then what do you think the older A-Body's were designed for? If you could go back in time, you'd see most of these 'muscle cars' were just humdrum base models that were built for.....mid level luxury/family cars. Many of these were slow, ugly 4 doors too. Were those muscle cars?

About the only G body model intended for performance at all is the GNX which had alot of post factory modifications and even that has flaws. The bodies and frames are weak and flimsy and not designed to take more than 400 HP safely in stock form. The front suspension is bad by even 1950s standards. G bodies are just mid level luxury/family cars gearheads hotrod now.

Again depending on ones definition of 'muscle car', the 80's Monte SS's, 442's, H/O's, and GN's can easily be considered muscle cars. They came with more powerfull engines ( though still underpowered except for the GN and GNX ), better suspensions, better tires, upgraded transmission's, and a sporty trim. Does it matter if the frame wasn't as burly as the older cars? If a 65 Olds 442 is a muscle car, then one can easily make the argument an 85 Olds 442 is a muscle car too since they were both built for the same purpose.

I will stick to my earlier comment that a G-Body is nothing more than the 80's version of the older A-Bodys. Just because the older A-Bodys may be better in some respects doesn't change that. Many would agree. Many would not. I don't lose any sleep over it either way.

 

[pencero]

Wheres some decent pics of these interiors for comparison? This wierd off topic argument about g-bodies being 'muscle cars' is kind of stupid though. Obviously because of emissions laws the A-bodies were the last muscle cars. When are you guys going to finally arrive at the obvious point that said emissions laws were put in place to hold everyone down. GM is consistently sabotaging projects purposefully and filing their best efforts away to pull out later and planning the obsolescence of their platforms ahead of time now just like they were then. There is evidence / and there are witnesses to this day who claim GM sabotaged the electric car project to keep us dependent on oil and benefit themselves under the table. As if they couldn't release a hybrid sitting on honeycomb tires that could get us across the country on 1 or 2 tanks of gas today. The government doesn't want you to be able to be that mobile, and they want to pick and choose the winning horses ahead of time too. It is simply by finding all the failing points of old technology and substituting better parts we are 'hot-rod' ing these cars - but they were never muscle cars. That's stupid. Look up the M/T reviews on youtube and they are even making fun of the 442 in the review...

 

[DoubleV]

So the 'is a G-Body a muscle car' off-topic debate is stupid but your off-topic 'GM is out to get us' rant is what? Enlightening? News flash; ALL big buisiness and the government are out to bleed the public dry and control us. Only an idiot would debate that. But hey, how 'bout those guys from PUI interiors?

 

[olds307 and 403]

The Hurst/Olds, 442 and Monte SS were just a motor swap away from being fast, all the other pieces are there. The GN could embrass those "Muscle Cars" off the show room floor. I shake my head when some jealous guy tells my Wife our Challenger isn't a real one without the Hemi. I guess he didn't know the awesome Slant 6 and mighty 318 ended up in a pile of them, 318 especially. Most were plain optioned cars back then because the top options were huge money, same as today. There is no value in these G body cars, especially the non performance models. What guys ask for NOS parts for these is a joke. Good job Toby, it is a small market just like performance parts for the Olds V8. That is the only reason I own this car, last of the full frame, RWD coupe with Olds V8 power GM made. Honestly the B body that carried over the 73-77 A body chassis is better. More durable and better handling. Just most of the Delta 88/98 look like Grampa mobiles and are 4 doors plus the weight penality or I would swap in a minute. Maybe I should throw on big front and rear bars to improve my floaty mess.

 

[Clone TIE Pilot]

If you believe that then what do you think the older A-Body's were designed for? If you could go back in time, you'd see most of these 'muscle cars' were just humdrum base models that were built for.....mid level luxury/familely cars. Many of these were slow, ugly 4 doors too. Were those muscle cars?

A bodies are full size vs G bodies which are mid size, both are mid level. No, but they are closer to beingscle muscle cars than G bodies are. You could build and install a high end powertrain and turn the base model into a muscle car, no matter what the purists say. But your arument here is just a fallacy of division. However with G bodies, even the performance models were intended to be just more powerful luxury/family cars. They were not intended to be muscle or sports cars. The turbo Buicks are more akin to modern tuners than muscle cars. Basically your whole arument here is a weak analogy with division.

Again depending on ones definition of 'muscle car', the 80's Monte SS's, 442's, H/O's, and GN's can easily be considered muscle cars. They came with more powerfull engines ( though still underpowered except for the GN and GNX ), better suspensions, better tires, upgraded transmission's, and a sporty trim. Does it matter if the frame wasn't as burly as the older cars? If a 65 Olds 442 is a muscle car, then one can easily make the argument an 85 Olds 442 is a muscle car too since they were both built for the same purpose.

That is a hasty generalization. Many MCSSs have weaker brake boosters than base model Regals of the same model year. GNs lack body bushings and bracing that even base MCs have. The higher perforamce G bodies are just simply more powerful luxury/family cars again. A 1965 Olds factory 422 is a muscle car, a base 1965 Olds rebuilt to 442 specs is a muscle car (nonfactory). A 1985 Olds 422 is just a slightly faster luxury/family car. Put a Olds 455 or a LS9 into it, then it would be a fast luxury/family car. I don't view this as a bad thing at all.

 

[1evilregal]

I think arguing about "if" the g-bodies are "muscle-cars" is a moot point... all the cars of the eighties are like comparing apples to pears: they look similar, they taste similar, they have similar texture, but they're not quite the same...

look at the 82& 83 corvettes-the pinnacle of the chevy "muscle-car" line-up: 190 & 200 hp for 82-83... is this really a muscle car? standard regals were @ 125hp...

I really think that the g-bodies can't be classified as "muscle", or "luxury"... these were made for the masses with a wide variety of options, depending on the deepness of the buyer's pockets. the area that I think really presents itself, that Toby jumped on early, is POPULARITY.

I'm reminded of another popular line of cars that weren't really "muscle", but "popular" with gearheads, and probably everyone here has drooled over: the 55-57 chevys.

Toby, once again, thank you for having the forsight to see the grownig trend in our cars, and making options for us where there wouldn't be much avaulable to us as there is.

 

[DoubleV]

OK so lets sum this up so everybody here understands; A performance ( SS, 442 etc. ) G-Body doesn't qualify as a muscle car because they were 'luxurious', had missing body bushings, didn't have a true full frame, and GN's were 'tuners' ( even before there was even such a term ). They simply cannot be considered to be the muscle cars of their day because of these things.

Since we completely derailed this thread, how about lets start a new topic on this?

 

[pencero]

you're hilarious though. There's just not enough torque there to argue anything but the GN / GNX as true muscle cars. I love the 442 and would love to have one someday but if it's a muscle car stock how come so many guys are swapping to ls motors? It's a fantastic cruiser and fun to drive but it's just not there...