What is a Muscle Car?

"Leadbull" (leadbull911) 10/14/2014 at 11:19 • Filed to: qotd

2

63

We spend a lot of time on this site trying to decide what exactly a "sports car" is. Seemingly endless debates about what criteria constitute sports cars, supercars and hypercars have been held, but it's not too often muscle cars get thrown into the mix.

It's an important question, though. Is the Hammer above a muscle car? How about modern AMGs? Can any non-American cars be thrown into that category? Are Mustangs and Camaros muscle cars, or pony cars? Is the GT500 a muscle car, but not the base 'Stang? Can sedans be muscle cars?

I don't proclaim to be an expert on this subject, and I don't even have a strong opinion of my own. But I know many of you do, and I'd like to hear what you have to say. Feel free to duke it out, but try to keep things civil — no shots to the groin, and no insulting people's mothers.

PushToStart > Leadbull 10/14/2014 at 11:26

5

It's hard to define, but I know it when I see it.

Personally, I'd say base requirements are 2-door, RWD, and probably a V8 up front. But that doesn't mean every car like that falls under that category, but it's a good place to start.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Leadbull 10/14/2014 at 11:30

3

The classical definition is more or less: mid or full-size platform, V8 (with some exceptions for V8-like engine setups on more than one point: see GN), typically two doors RWD, and provisionally excluding luxury. So, Mercedes platforms are muscle car-like, but inasmuch as a Caddy two-door RWD isn't typically considered a muscle car, the Benz wouldn't be either. Able to go fast around the twisties ain't in the definition, and the luxury hit is a big one, so even with good performance index and a V8, the Benz would only sort of be one. A lot of the grey area is typically sorted out by platform style, which is why it's typically harder to point at a Euro V8 and say it's a muscle car, whereas a Holden.. YUP.

Pony cars are often sorted out apart from muscle cars due to the fact that a six-powered pony car isn't on target, and that the "chunkiness" quality is missing in many. I'd say keeping the two separate is a mistake, though, there are pony cars that really should be thought of as muscle cars, and others that shouldn't - depending on engine option/etc.

punkgoose17 > Leadbull 10/14/2014 at 11:31

1

For me a muscle car requires a V8 and at the least 4 seats. 2 doors should probably be a requirement too. If any car meets these 3 requirements I cannot think of an argument to say it is not a muscle car.

Sn210 > Leadbull 10/14/2014 at 11:31

1

I think it's a wide genre, not anything specific. To me, it's always been anything with a beefy v8 upfront powering the rear wheels. Straight line performance through brute force. Displacement, horsepower, and torque. Muscle.

Cadillac V cars, AMG's, Srt's, M's Mustangs, Camaros, Shelby Cobras, they're all Muscle cars to me. The only exception here would be the Grand National.

Think of it like all Dolphins are mammals but not all mammals are Dolphins, if we want to get philosophical

Aaron James > Leadbull 10/14/2014 at 11:33

0

A big requirement is a Full size car, it has to be a Full size car with a V8. Mustangs, Camaros, and Challengers. (and Javelins and Cougers) are by definition Pony cars and NOT muscle cars. They never were and they Never will be.

punkgoose17 > Leadbull 10/14/2014 at 11:33

0

Can you add me to oppo? My pending replies don't even seem to show anymore.

Milky > Leadbull 10/14/2014 at 11:33

3

First off your mother is whore.

Second, imo its a 2 door whose characteristics lean more towards brute strength rather than finesse.

thismightbemylastburner > Leadbull 10/14/2014 at 11:33

0

I would say its any car that is advertised/engineered with power and speed as a primary goal that also uses large engine size as part of the formula.

Leadbull > punkgoose17 10/14/2014 at 11:34

1

Now that you say it, the 4 seats thing definitely seems like an important criterion.

Leadbull > Sn210 10/14/2014 at 11:36

1

not all mammals are Dolphins

Speak for yourself...

Leadbull > Milky 10/14/2014 at 11:37

1

Leadbull > thismightbemylastburner 10/14/2014 at 11:38

0

So, a Lamborghini Aventador?

Leadbull > punkgoose17 10/14/2014 at 11:38

1

I just followed you for Oppositelock.

If you want full authorship, though, you'll have to find a moderator.

Textured Soy Protein > Leadbull 10/14/2014 at 11:38

1

Why must we have yet another attempt to codify specific rules that define a broad vehicle category, where there are always bound to be exceptions to one or more of those rules, and nobody can agree on the rules anyway?

jariten1781 > punkgoose17 10/14/2014 at 11:40

0

But then stuff like Cadillac Eldorados and Lincoln Mark coupes are in your definition and they're decidedly not muscle cars.

Leadbull > Textured Soy Protein 10/14/2014 at 11:40

0

Because your mother asked me to, last night.

Hahayoustupidludditeshutupandgohandcrankyourmodeltalready > Milky 10/14/2014 at 11:42

0

Well said.

Leadbull > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 10/14/2014 at 11:42

0

The Challenger Hellcat is luxurious.

Is it not a muscle car?

If it's just an exception, then why can't certain AMGs also be exceptions?

punkgoose17 > Aaron James 10/14/2014 at 11:44

0

I usually think of Pony Cars as the lesser powered sporty cars. E.G. the Pontiac LeMans would be a pony car but a GTO was the muscle car. Similar to the relation of a pony to a Clydesdale or other draft horse.

Textured Soy Protein > Leadbull 10/14/2014 at 11:45

0

My mom's crazy, and a giant pain in my ass. So attempting to insult me with "your mother" lines doesn't really work.

Leadbull > Textured Soy Protein 10/14/2014 at 11:46

0

I use strikethrough font, so I never actually insulted your mother, and thus abided by the rules of this post.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Leadbull 10/14/2014 at 11:48

0

Typically manufacturers get to skate on one point or more, but that one's the hardest, the "luxury tourer or muscle car" distinction. HOWEVER: it's also the most arbitrary, perception-wise. Some of the first true muscle cars were Oldsmobiles, which eventually lurched toward luxury option packages, and Buick was always a "Premium" brand leaning luxury, but gave us the GS and others. Whether you can get away with a "luxury" muscle car has a lot to do with planned brand identity and your company's raison d'etre, possibly as much or more so than platform. Mercedes would have to make something brutal and raw to distinguish it as "non-luxury", and raw is something that they don't do half as well as brutal. In the mean time, a 4-4-2 might be surprisingly refined for what it is and still get away with it.

Party-vi > Leadbull 10/14/2014 at 11:51

0

The muscle car was an affordable family car with a bigger engine stuffed under the hood. Any AMG is not a muscle car, as they were never affordable. The 'Stang would be a muscle car except it's a pony car and not based off a sedan. I think the best example of a modern-day muscle car is the Pontaic G8 or the Dodge Charger. Family sedan with a big-ass engine that isn't out of reach for most budgets.

Leadbull > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 10/14/2014 at 11:52

0

So:

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > jariten1781 10/14/2014 at 11:54

0

That's why I included RWD preferred and luxury weighting in my breakdown. It's important to know whether conceptually the V8 is there to haul ass in general, or the car's own weighty ass in specific. Thus, the Toronado is.. probably? a muscle car, and the Eldorado isn't.

punkgoose17 > jariten1781 10/14/2014 at 11:55

0

Good point I did not think of them. RWD as a requirement should get rid of some of the Eldorados. I am trying to stick with concrete requirements. How do I get the cars advertized as "personal luxury" cars off the list?

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Party-vi 10/14/2014 at 11:56

0

not based off a sedan

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

/pedantic kneebiting

That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms > Party-vi 10/14/2014 at 11:56

1

Nailed it in one word: affordable. A big engine in a smallish, affordable package makes a muscle car.

Leadbull > Party-vi 10/14/2014 at 11:57

1

Maybe they started out that way, but I'd argue that muscle cars quickly evolved into more purpose built machines... often times expensive ones.

T5Killer > Leadbull 10/14/2014 at 11:58

0

To me it is a Small or medium sized inexpensive (IE NON LUXURY) car with a big engine in it. So that puts the Caddy and AMG Benz out of the running.

Sn210 > Leadbull 10/14/2014 at 12:00

0

you should start an "opposite locker" type series so we can figure all this out, car by car, vote by vote

That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms > Leadbull 10/14/2014 at 12:00

2

Powerful, affordable, seats four (at least in theory), engine in the front. It can have four doors (a 2 door Chevelle with a 350 is a muscle car, but a 4 door with a 454 wouldn't be?), you can even talk me into them being front wheel drive (Olds Toronado with a 455).

Hell, I'm not even saying it needs to be a V8. Like the Dodge Neon SRT4...doesn't that follow the original muscle car formula right down to the letter? Stupid power, little car.

RazoE > Leadbull 10/14/2014 at 12:00

0

My definition of a muscle car is any production vehicle WITH a bigger engine option and other upgrades to support. A Viper? No. It only has 1 engine and not based on any other production car. Hellcat Challenger? YES. Base model has a V6 (albeit a good one). The Charger Hellcat is also a muscle car by my definition.

punkgoose17 > Leadbull 10/14/2014 at 12:01

0

Thanks!

Party-vi > Leadbull 10/14/2014 at 12:02

1

You could get a GTO in '69 that wasn't a Judge. Also, the Challenger was never a muscle car.

Party-vi > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 10/14/2014 at 12:03

0

Sorry, I didn't know the Mustang was actually called the "Falcon Coupe".

/Comeatmebro

jariten1781 > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 10/14/2014 at 12:04

0

Toronado is also FWD.

The 67 on up Thunderbird meets all that, but I wouldn't count that as a muscle car either.

Leadbull > Party-vi 10/14/2014 at 12:05

0

Wat.

Leadbull > Sn210 10/14/2014 at 12:05

0

That sounds like work.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Aaron James 10/14/2014 at 12:06

0

That's long been a traditional line, but I consider it to be horseshit imposed by those who didn't want to draw lines where they should have been drawn - through the *middle* of the ponycar segment. Laziness in thinking. With lines that *were* pony cars now based off full-size platforms (see: current Challenger and Camaro) it makes even less sense now than it ever did. I grant that there are some pony cars that are not muscle cars - anything with a secretary six - but with (for example) the early 70s Mustang less than 2" more narrow than a Chevelle and only 8" shorter, that disctinction Does Not Make Sense. Are we to argue that a 428 'Stang has more in common in type with a six-speed auto '64.5 convertible than a Charger? Does. Not. Make. Sense.

To discount all pony cars from the category by calling for a mid-size platform muddies the waters more than people think it does. Particularly with mid-size cars and pony cars sharing platforms, which has been happening since, oh, I don't know, the damn FOX.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Party-vi 10/14/2014 at 12:07

1

Der Falkoncoupe Langnese, we like to call it.

Aaron James > punkgoose17 10/14/2014 at 12:08

0

The term Pony car was first coined for the Mustang and then applied to it's competitors, the Camaro and Challenger. The LeMans was just a car though, nothing sporty about them. A GTO isn't sporty, it's all Muscle... Full disclosure here, My favorite Muscle car is the 69 GTO Judge followed closely by the 65-67 GTO.

Sn210 > Leadbull 10/14/2014 at 12:08

0

lol that's why I said you should start

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > jariten1781 10/14/2014 at 12:10

0

Yep, hence the question mark. It would *definitely* be a muscle car if it weren't, because it's not luxury-marque enough to tip it over. The FWD throws the proverbial wrench in the works, making it a maybe/maybe not. I tend to think an AWD dragster being made out of it, and its tendencies to be used for burning rubber both as strong points in its favor. Excess musculature and lack of adipose, if you will.

Party-vi > Leadbull 10/14/2014 at 12:10

0

The Challenger was a pony car.

crowmolly > Leadbull 10/14/2014 at 12:10

0

Gonna don a flame suit for this one.

But in my opinion, it's got to basically fit this:

1.) Basis of the vehicle is an everyday car . Nothing flashy and something that is affordable on most household budgets. The base version of the car should be plain and unassuming and something an elderly person (who is far from a motorhead) would drive to church. So no Vette, no Shelby, no Camaro, no Challenger. It should be cheap everyman speed that can masquerade as a somewhat sound decision for a family man.

2.) RWD, V8, and 2 doors are NOT necessarily required . Grand Nationals should qualify, as should the '94-'96 Impalas, and the Hellcat Chargers (stretching the budget on this one). As should the G8.

3.) Seats 4 adults comfortably or shares a platform with a car that does . Sorry, but your hot hatch shouldn't qualify. The El Camino should.

4.) Roots in the United States . This is the one I'm sure I'll get shit for, but from the 409 Impalas all the way up to today the idea of "muscle cars" have been largely an American thing. To me it is more than just a category of car, it represents cars during a particular point in American history. A 450hp BMW is quite a thing to behold but the car itself doesn't represent cheap speed.

5.) You can work on it at home/maintenance won't kill you . Should be self explanatory.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Leadbull 10/14/2014 at 12:12

0

It's harder and harder to make a self-distinguishing muscle car these days because comfort level/cost/noise level, and engine equip all hew closer together with few gaps and a lot of overlap. Mercedes has an uphill battle.

crowmolly > Aaron James 10/14/2014 at 12:12

0

This means you are excluding the Chevelle and GTO.

jariten1781 > punkgoose17 10/14/2014 at 12:13

1

I suppose you'd just have to list 'not a personal luxury car'. That gets dicey though since people pretty much stopped calling them that after then death of the Mark V. I'd consider things like the Mercedes CLs and S coupes PLCs but I've never seen them advertised as such (and I don't think they're muscle cars even though they meet the rest of the definition).

thismightbemylastburner > Leadbull 10/14/2014 at 12:21

0

Yes, definitely.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > crowmolly 10/14/2014 at 12:21

0

Yep. To get the whole shebang of the traditional definition, you have to say mid or full-size, and then the argument for excluding pony cars en bloc falls apart when examined closely.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > crowmolly 10/14/2014 at 12:25

1

I'd amend to say that roots in the US *does* extend to Oz as well. Despite the fact that the Holdens and Fords were relatives of US offerings, they *did* evolve somewhat independently, and forced by osmosis some other offerings to evolve as well. Leyland of Australia produced some pretty inarguable muscle cars.

crowmolly > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 10/14/2014 at 12:27

0

That's why I went with "roots". There's a strong connection to the Oz guys and they certainly deserve inclusion.

crowmolly > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 10/14/2014 at 12:29

0

However in that case you are axing Novas, Hemi Darts, and so on.

T5Killer > Leadbull 10/14/2014 at 12:30

0

Price. Even with the expensive Hellcat its not anywhere as pricy as the AMG.

E63 AMG MSRP is $99,770 Hellcat Challenger is $58,295.

Aaron James > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 10/14/2014 at 12:31

0

It's an endless debate that's been going on for decades.

Aaron James > crowmolly 10/14/2014 at 12:34

0

Yes I should have said Full and intermediate.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > crowmolly 10/14/2014 at 12:35

0

That's why I'm saying the traditional definition falls apart. *Exactly* why.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > crowmolly 10/14/2014 at 12:40

0

I missed your #5 on first read, and it's a huge one. Total affordability of the car aside (Buicks *were* pricier back in the day), whether or not it's a car that offers *sustainable* performance is significant. The essence of the muscle car is that a blue color person can or could in its day afford to *run* one, which means the GS and other pricier options still qualify. Higher buy-in means more savings invested, more months or years of work to *get* it, but it's not going to price you out of your blue collar job when you have it. This, I think, is the biggest nail in the coffin of the last couple offerings from Benz with V8s. Not really even that they're luxury per se, but if they break, a blue collar guy who bought one is hosed.

thismightbemylastburner > Leadbull 10/14/2014 at 12:46

0

Some might argue that body style and aerodynamics play a factor. The Lamborghini uses its shape to increase its performance potential, while a vintage Camaro SS uses blunt force and torque to overcome its inefficiency in aerodynamics.

punkgoose17 > jariten1781 10/14/2014 at 14:36

0

I agree. I looked up the 0-60 mph times of the Lincoln Mark VIII, Mustang, and Camero of the same / similar years

1996 Ford Mustang GT 0-60 mph: 6.7 seconds

1996 Lincoln Mark VIII 0-60 mph: 7.1 seconds

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

1999 Ford Mustang GT 0-60 mph: 5.4 seconds

1998 Lincoln Mark VIII LSC 0-60 mph: 6.9 seconds

I have to say the Mark VIII is no muscle car, but the Cadillac CTS-V coupe is a muscle car even though I never thought of it as one.

DrScientist > Party-vi 10/15/2014 at 13:32

0

you could probably have also gotten a mid/full size benz coupe in europe that wasn't an amg and relatively affordable.

Party-vi > DrScientist 10/15/2014 at 14:20

0

True dat, but even muscle cars were still affordable when compared to their more-pedestrian counterparts.