muscle cars

[79GP6.6L]

The last of the 80's F-body cars were rated at 245 horsepower and 345 ft-lbs of torque if you opted for the 5.7L engine. In 1989 the Turbo T/A was rated at 250hp/340tq.

No GTO was ever produced with a small block (except for 04-06). They all had Pontiac engines, and Pontiac used the same size block for every 326-455 V8.

And yes, I screwed up on the 63 Tempest. Oops.

Now, as to the musclecar issue: hypothetically... I assemble a project car. It is a 2 door, rear wheel drive, GM vehicle, with a full frame. I install, lets say, a modified Pontiac 455, a TH400 transmission, and a GM 12 bolt rear axle with 3.73 gears. I also install headers and a dual exhaust system with a popular brand of performance mufflers. It has a nice, choppy idle, smokes the tires all the way down the block, and runs... I dunno... lets say low 12's or high 11's in the quarter.

Can I call my project car a musclecar? And to those that say no - if it does not fall into the category of musclecar, what category does it fall into?

 

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

I just tend to think of them all as Hot Rods. They were not very good from the factory, but we have fixed what GM and the EPA screwed up. Yes, the etymology of the word has taken a more generic direction, and now you could use it to define these cars as well. To be purely correct though, even a normal 1970 Malibu is not a musclecar- only a Chevelle SS would be. To be fair, the original word was a very narrow definition, but that's the funny thing about studying etymologies of words- seeing how they evolve over time.

 

[breeaad]

My question is why didn't GM put the 5.7L TPI into at least the MCSS (if not the 442 and GP 2+2)? It was mass production, would have likely cost less, and have improved EPA fuel milage!! I never understood that...

 

[madmaxstyle]

To move big heavy objects one needs BIG muscles but to use the same muscle to lift a small amount of weight one could do it faster.

To move a heavy vehicle it must have BIG torque to get it rolling. Its all about the neck jarring, rubber burning, u joint popping, glovebox coming open, my passenger-just-pissed in his-pants and were still in 2nd gear v8 torque, and its ability to move a heavy object from rest at an increased rate of speed with power to spare

In conclusion I believe its the v8 torque that makes it a muscle car.
I think the definition is changing and evolving as turbo 4 cylinders are producing a very good power to weight ratio, that increases its ability to move quickly from a dead stop..........
Thats my theory of evolution

 

[79GP6.6L]

My question is why didn't GM put the 5.7L TPI into at least the MCSS (if not the 442 and GP 2+2)? It was mass production, would have likely cost less, and have improved EPA fuel milage!! I never understood that...

They didn't even want to put it into the F-body lineup. I forget the exact story, but originally they weren't going to do it, but then they changed direction. Now i'll have to remember where I read that. I'm pretty sure it was an EPA certification issue.

 

[G_Body_Enthusiast]

f-bodies and mustangs are pony cars.
vettes are sports cars.
muscle cars are....well its a little vague.

technically not all chevelles, novas, etc came with the biggest and baddest engine. lots of them were base models, including wagons for the cutlass and chevelle as well as 4 door sedans one of which my grandmother owned, a 72 cutlass 4 door with a 350 rocket and a th350 transmission.

how is this different from g-bodies? they arent except in engine size.

the g-body platform is performance based but with tighter restrictions, had to use smaller, under powered engines. do you think GM put in weakass 3.8 buicks V6's for fun? no they did it because they couldnt use bigger engines for base model cars. they had to have better fuel economy, put out less emissions, etc. the era of the muscle car ENDED when they started having to change how they made cars, look at 1973 models from GM. they are larger and yet already start to show a reduction in high end type models like 442's, SS, ralley sport, etc. engines for that year took a drop in HP, guess why? newer standards for fuel economy and emissions. lets also not forget we didnt always use unleaded gas. prior to the early 70's we used leaded gas but you couldnt use that in cars with catalytic convertors. so they went to unleaded. some say engines havent ran the same since. i wouldnt know since ive lived only in the unleaded era of gas consumption.

heck even camaros got straight 6's during this muscle car era. mustangs came with 6 cylinders too.

only difference is the restriction one generation has the other does not.

 

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

You have to remember that the original way that CAFE was calculated was heavily biased towards highway fuel economy at a steady state 55mph. A bigger engine has a higher minimum amount of fuel to keep it running at a steady speed than a smaller one. Plus, taller gearing also minimizes engine speed to reduce fuel consumption when dealing with highway speed. This is why the 3.8 V6 cars were made as they were. The torque peak is around 1800 RPM, and that is about where the 2.41 gears and P195 75 R14 tires put the car at 55mph. (As anyone who has highway driven one of these cars under that set of circumstances can attest, the formula worked quite well. It is not unheard of for them to return 30mpg highway, even though fuel efficiency under any other set of circumstances tends to be as bad as the drivability.) Thus, it was set up to be maximized for a very specific set of circumstances to pacify the EPA's CAFE requirements. I will bet that if you look at other combinations used in these cars, a similar situation will arise. Thus, they limited the number of performance engines installed in passenger cars, and tended to limit them to where they would be the most profitable. That is the reason that the TPI 350 was such a limited engine.

 

[79GP6.6L]

Regarding the general horsepower drop that occured during the 70's, keep in mind that the horsepower ratings method was changed around this time as well. The automakers ditched the "gross hp" ratings system and started using the SAE net hp system. This change alone would have caused horsepower levels to fall, even if everything else remained the same.

 

[silent_orchestra]

I don't believe the G-Bodies are muscle cars... Emulations of muscle cars...maybe...But the real nasty muscle went out in the early 70's.

To me (in my twisted mind) the muscle car started back in the earlier stock car days... With the Rocket 88's and the Hudson Hornets... nasty cars for their day. Not even comparable to what they came up with in the 60's and 70's but it was a start.

I'd say the later Mustangs, Camaros, and Fire Chickens are pretty damn close to muscle. So are the new Challengers.

And then there is that whole late 70's and 80's Charger, Challenger, Daytona K-Car deal... and the 80's Novas, and Mustang II's..... Oh and then there's the front drive 442's..... What do ya call all that stuff?

 

[RUSTY OL BU]

I noticed you left the word factory out! (factory muscle car). They stopped building those in seventy two. But that being said your car is what YOU make it. Not what someone else says it is or isn't. I consider my car a muscle car! And i encourage you to do the same if you wish! 😀