I think a lot of people and clubs and organizations have their own definition of a muscle car. Its just, which one do you follow? And I am sure a lot of these guys tend to argue and debate over the definition of a muscle car as well.

To me, for example, I consider a muscle car to be
An american (US or Canadian) classic car from 60s-early 70s (excluding Lincolns and Caddy's and certain other cars)
2 door Car
Has Big engine (V8 no V6's or smaller)

But this is what I like to believe as my own definition of a muscle car. I am sure just for saying my opinion, I will get a lot of complaints from others, but that's my opinion of a muscle car.

-- Edited by mike667 at 16:02, 2008-12-03

I think 12lbs to 1 horse is a fair cut off point. Consider the average weight of a musclecar between those years. Probably in the neigborhood of 36-3700lbs? Compare that to the average horsepower of say 330?
The rule of thumb when it comes to the musclecar years has always been 64 through 72. The birth of the GTO in '64 and the death of high compression (Mopar), no longer a Hemi and net ratings in 1972.
People have their own difinetions. I'd take a 61 or 63 409 Biscayne over most cars between 64-72. Is it a musclecar? probably not by most peoples standards but it is a car that would kick the ass of most of them in that category.
Giddy Up - Giddy Up

It seems to be a GTO biased definition. What about the '55 Chrysler 300, '57 Chev 150 283 fuelie,57 Ford 312 supercharged? I could go on and on but everyone is entitled to there opinion." Factory Hot Rod" is another term that gets a lot of controversy with no true definition. 

Yes, trucks and wagons were on the e-mail but I edited it out, I mean it is a freaking book the guy sent me.
 
I will post the rest tomorrow since I need my office desktop to download from the BB.

-- Edited by 73SC at 21:02, 2008-12-03

Carl Stevenson wrote:

---

I would think if an L79 Acadian showed up he's be allowed in.....

---

I'd agree with Carl on this one, I don't really think the definition is meant to excluded big three cars built in Canada, it's really intended to keep cars like a Jensen Interceptor, Porsche, Ferrari, Jaguar etc.. out. I think the fact of the matter is they never knew they'd be excluding Oshawa 70 and 73 GTO's, Acadians and Beaumonts, 2+2's and what not. I don't think it is arrogance, just that they might not know.


-- Edited by 73SC at 00:07, 2008-12-04

-- Edited by 73SC at 23:35, 2008-12-05

Go visit this site;  http://www.africanmusclecars.com  They cater for old fogeys like me with my Malibu six cyl as well as big bangers!

-- Edited by Johann65 at 07:56, 2008-12-04

I understand their definition of a muscle car and generally agree.  The lbs/hp ratio is rather liberal but I believe that is used in order to include the 71-74 models.

The GTO was the original muscle car when it was introduced in 1964.  The original definition at that time was a large displacement motor or high output hp, normally used in a full size model, installed in an intermediate or small size model.  At that time, 1964 & 65 the bench mark in GM was anything larger than a 327 installed in a mid-size or smaller car.
Buick was a 400ci motor in a skylark chassis
Olds was a 400ci motor in a cutlass chassis
Chevy was a 396ci motor in a chevelle chassis
Pontiac was a 389ci motor in a Lemans chassis
Exceptions were made when Chevy put a 350hp/327ci motor in the chevy II chassis.

In my opinion a Corvette was never a muscle car.
Full size Chevys, Pontiacs, Buicks and Olds were never muscle cars.
Cars built prior to 1964 were never muscle cars.
When GM started building the 350ci SB it altered the definition.  The LT-1 at 360hp and 350ci was a muscle car in a Nova.
The 300hp/327ci motor in a Chevy II through 67 was a muscle car.  But when they redesigned the Chevy II in 68 and used the 300hp/350ci SB in their SS models I don't think they meant the criteria of a muscle car.  They were right on the bubble at 12lbs/hp and on the bottom rung of the muscle car ladder.  In the late 60's, BOP cars were running 400 and 455 motors and remained muscle cars.  The real Chevy muscle cars were running 396 and 427 motors.

Again, all of the above in my opinion but I did live through it and I know what it felt like to ride in a true off the showroom floor muscle car.  I also know that intermediate cars were something new in 64 and they set a precedent when the automakers installed large motors in these cars.
Every true muscle car will jump sideways in the road upon full acceleration and that is one of my criteria.

I don't mind their description of what a muscle car is. We all have different opinions, and i think that's what's great about the car hobby in general. I like the oddballs, like a 63 Impala four door with tow package and 427 i saw in a calender once. I don't consider my car a muscle car, but it's the car i wanted. At least we all can agree.."don't crush'em, restore'em"

-- Edited by blacktransam at 14:26, 2008-12-04

forespeed wrote:

---

I understand their definition of a muscle car and generally agree.  The lbs/hp ratio is rather liberal but I believe that is used in order to include the 71-74 models.

The GTO was the original muscle car when it was introduced in 1964.
.

In my opinion a Corvette was never a muscle car.


muscle cars were running 396 and 427 motors.


Every true muscle car will jump sideways?

---

        1966 427-425 Biscaynes, are in the list of the "50 fastest muscle cars"  and 7 Corvettes!   Muscle Car Magazine 1988 list...


-- Edited by 427carl at 17:50, 2008-12-04

I am going, to get working, on getting the Strato Chief to "jump" sideways!   I guess it was so busy, running down the track @13.30@101 in 2nd gear with 2.73's , that it forgot to jump sideways... Maybe some E70-14 bias plys will help lol

-- Edited by 427carl at 18:36, 2008-12-04

forespeed wrote:

---

As far as the super quick Deville goes, it is kind of like a hex nut in a round hole.  You are just trying to fit in.  

---