Muscle Car..What car is considered the first?

[MN71W30]

This is a 1970 Car life comparison of the cars and you don't even see the word Musclecar.

[jaunty75]

Originally Posted by bpwordman

A) 1932 Ford V8
B) The aformentioned 1936 Buick Century
C) Our beloved 1949 88
D) 1955 Chrysler 300
E) 1964 GTO

All of these are, by one definition, a muscle car. They're all powerful cars. But another thing that sets the '64 GTO apart is that IT was immediately seen by the other GM divisions and the other manufacturers as being "on" to something that they had to match and match quickly. Heck, Olds didn't even want to wait for the next model year to field a competitor. None of the first four cars you mention led quickly to an "era" of similar cars.

In short, one can argue that the '64 GTO "started something big," while the others did not, or at least did not in such a short time over such a wide swath of the car market.

[jaunty75]

Originally Posted by MN71W30

This is a 1970 Car life comparison of the cars and you don't even see the word Musclecar.

Very interesting! I'm sure "muscle car" was a term that likely existed by 1970 but certainly wasn't yet universally used.

On that list, any of the cars that fall into the first three categories could be considered a muscle car today. I do see some station wagons in the "intermediate" category, though. Seems a little strange to include a family hauler like the Chevrolet Kingswood in the same category as the Rallye 350 and the Chevelle SS396. Performance stats aren't that much different, though. Less than a second in the quarter mile, for example.

[MN71W30]

The first time I remember ever heard the word was about 1979 when I was looking at a special ordered, sleeper 1970 mustang with a big engine, 4 speed and dog dish hubcaps. The guy said it was a muscle car. I don't know why or how I remember that. I don't think the term was widely used until the early 80's.

[wmachine]

Originally Posted by MN71W30

This is a 1970 Car life comparison of the cars and you don't even see the word Musclecar.

You can see our "problems" with performance car magazines are not a recent phenomenon.
A Dart Swinger a "Supercar"?
A Vette a "Ponycar"?

[WhatIf]

This topic has been discussed many times on other sites. People seem to be sort of touchy on the term "Musclecar" when the topic of "which Musclecar was quickest?" comes up. The discussion always points to:

1969 ZL-1 Camaro
1970/1971 Hemi Cuda
1969/1970 Boss 429 Mustang
1969 Mustang 428SCJ
1969 COPO Camaro
1969 Trans Am RAIV
1968 Firebird RAII

But then the A-body guys say these aren't Musclecars, they're Ponycars, and they want them excluded. That's a shame, because the cars listed above were arguably the fastest cars of the era.

BTW, the term "Musclecar" (or "muscle car") was first used in Road Test Magazine in June 1967 (I thought it was 1966, my bad).

[Olds64]

C'mon guys! I can't believe nobody has gotten it right yet!

The first muscle car was the 1897 Curved Dash Oldsmobile!

[64 Cutlass]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_car

[jaunty75]

Originally Posted by jaunty75

I don't have the exact dimensions in front of me, but how big was the '61 Olds 98 compared to the '67 98? Both were "full-sized" Oldsmobiles. I'll bet the '67 Cutlass was larger than the '61 98. But the 98 is "full-size", regardless of how small it actually was, and the Cutlass was always an "intermediate," or, as the class it's in at car shows is often labeled, "other than full-size," regardless of how large it actually was.

There's nothing like quoting yourself.

Now that I've had a chance to check, my supposition above is wrong. The '61 98 had a wheelbase of 126 inches and length of 218. The '67 98 had the same wheelbase and a length of 223 inches. So the '67 was about a half-foot longer. But the '67 Cutlass length was 204 inches, shorter by more than a foot than the '61 98.

But the '61 full-size cars were so much less bulky looking than the '60s and '59s that they SEEMED much smaller. The '61 98 was 3 inches shorter than the '60 and 5 inches shorter than the '59. Wheelbases were about 126.5 inches for all three years. It wouldn't be until 1966 that the 98 once again reached the length it was in 1959. To finish the thought, the longest the '98 would get was 227.6 inches in 1976. That was just about 10 inches longer than the '61.

Now I can quit arguing with myself.

[mugzilla]

Originally Posted by MN71W30

This is a 1970 Car life comparison of the cars and you don't even see the word Musclecar.

The W-30 is the fastest supercar ...

[mugzilla]

G M A-bodies were considered compacts in their early years ...

[grandma'sH/O]

Originally Posted by Dan Wirth

Anyone know which car was considered the first "Muscle Car"?

To get back to the orginal question, what is the first American Muscle Car... It would have to be the Ford 999, with its 1155 inch (18.8L) motor and light body with Barney Oldfeild at the rudder...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_999

[redoldsman]

This debate will never be settled. While the 49 Super 88 was fast for it's day, it certainly was no muscle car. I really think it has to go to the 64 GTO. Somebody on this thread mentioned a 64 Buick Gran Sport with a small block. No such animal. Gran Sport came out in 65 with what Buick called a 400 which they claimed was an underbored 401. Sure it was. Two of the best muscle cars have to be the 1970 W30 and the 1970 Buick GS455 Stage 1. I never heard the term muscle car back in the day either.

[wolfman98]

Originally Posted by jaunty75

I couldn't agree more. I think the notion of "muscle car" quickly changed from the idea of a large-car engine in a small car to simply being a small-ish but powerful car to perhaps just a powerful car. I doubt anybody now wouldn't consider the '64 442 a muscle car. I doubt anybody back in late 1964 didn't consider the 442 a muscle car.

So if it was a powerfull engine in a small car where does corvette fit into the musclcar catagory? They were definetly light enough.

[Diego]

Anyone who thinks something other than the 1964 GTO must be on crack.

I like to think the 1964 GTO was the first musclecar, but there were musclecars before the GTO.

[wmachine]

Originally Posted by coldwar

On note about the '64 GTO, I've never read exactly why the best 421 engines of 1964 did not end up in the GTO. Lots of speculation about diffs and top-down 400" corporate mandates, but you think they might have got that done, effectively driving a stake through the heart of the competition for years. I never thought they took any gamble the small car-big engine thing would sell cars, they knew it, buyers demanded it, I think.

I think this is a case where hindsight makes this more apparent than it really was.
The '64 GTO was just another of many performance car "shots" that were taken over the years. Anybody that says they knew then that this was a shot that would start the war it did is just a tired Monday morning quarterback. They were in the right place at the right time more than anything. Yes, meaning they were for the most part lucky. That's the way marketing goes. And even by '66, nobody really knew it would continue as it did.

[WhatIf]

They sold over 32,000 GTO's in 1964, and the big wigs at GM told DeLorean he'd be lucky to sell 5,000. I'd say it was a pretty big hit, and a definite shift in American car culture. I would attribute some of that success to the fact that the GM "no-racing" ban in 1963 left a void in the GM lineup. Ford and Chrysler continued with their racing efforts, but GM radically toned it down for 1964. The GTO was at the right place at the right time.

As for the 421 not going into the GTO, the policy was that no intermediate GM vehicle could have an engine larger than 330 cubic inches as standard equipment. DeLorean skirted that by offering the GTO as an option on the 326 Tempest/Lemans. It was hard enough getting the 389 past the head honchos, let alone a 421. It took a couple years for the rest of the GM Divisions to get on board. The 1965 GTO was a huge success, and the other divisions realized they needed their own Musclecar, and quickly.

The GTO wasn't the first intermediate car with power, but it was the car that launched the entire Musclecar Era.

[wmachine]

Originally Posted by WhatIf

As for the 421 not going into the GTO, the policy was that no intermediate GM vehicle could have an engine larger than 330 cubic inches as standard equipment. DeLorean skirted that by offering the GTO as an option on the 326 Tempest/Lemans. It was hard enough getting the 389 past the head honchos, let alone a 421. It took a couple years for the rest of the GM Divisions to get on board. The 1965 GTO was a huge success, and the other divisions realized they needed their own Musclecar, and quickly.

No skirting at all. The ban was for engines over 400 cid, and ran though '69.
And *all* of the other GM divisions were on board no later than the following year (1965).


[quote=WhatIf;121131]
The GTO wasn't the first intermediate car with power, but it was the car that launched the entire Musclecar Era.

I think that is about the most appropriate answer to the original question.

[WhatIf]

No, the first GM mandate was for intermediates to be limited to 330 cubic inches as the base engine for the model, not 400.

DeLorean worked in secrecy to put the 389 into the GTO, then he convinced the GM execs that he "played by the rules", and that the GTO was an "option", so the 389 was not the base engine. If the GM rules allowed 400 cubes in 1964, there wouldn't have been any problems, and there wouldn't have been any issues with proposing the 64 GTO. But the stories of DeLorean pitching this idea to a bunch of suit and tie GM execs is stuff of legend. Some other division managers actually laughed at DeLorean when he tried to pitch the GTO, and one exec stated during the meeting that he guaranteed that DeLorean wouldn't be able to sell 5,000 of those "GTO things".

Since DeLorean claimed he already had orders for thousands of these GTO's (he personally drove the prototype around to dealers and had them sign orders), the executives allowed him to build the car, but DeLorean was put on notice for breaking corporate policies. That really ticked off the other GM Division General Managers, especially when the 64 GTO became a hit.

Because of the GTO's immediate success, the 330 cube rule was lifted, and the 400 cube mandate was enacted in 1965. That mandate stood for 3 years, until Oldsmobile broke that policy with the 1968 Hurst/Olds. The 68 H/O skirted the mandate by Olds claiming the engines would be transplanted, but as we know, the 68 H/O's left the factory with the 455 under the hood.

[wolfman98]

I guess this may have been some of the reasoning for the corvette's beefing up going from a 327 in 64 to a 396 in 65 then a 427 for 67. Though in 64 the fuel injected 327 was putting out 375 hsp. I think in 67 the L88 option got you a 427 big block pumping out somewhere around 500 hsp.

[WhatIf]

The Corvette was exempt from GM policies. When GM axed the "multiple carb" setup after 1966, and Olds and Pontiac lost their tri-powers, Corvette used a tri-power setup up until 1969. And cubic inch limitations, even horsepower per cubic inch policies (1 hp per 10 cubic inches) didn't seem to phase Chevrolet. They always got special treatment.

The GM 330-cube limit (and later 400 cube) rule was just a policy. It wasn't a federal law or anything. But no Division Manager wanted to risk their jobs, or end up in the GM doghouse, by breaking that policy. DeLorean was a rebel in this area. But in truth, if his ideas ever backfired and Pontiac lost sales, he wouldn't have been allowed the flexibility he had. Unfortunately, his arrogance, and his brilliance, was his downfall.

[WhatIf]

Personally, I think the Oldsmobile guys had some real guts when they shoved that 68 H/O past GM corporate with a 455 engine. That was just as risky (if not more so) that what DeLorean did in 1964 with the GTO.

[Col Wickham]

A good article on the birth of the muscle car on the web.
http://musclecars.howstuffworks.com/...cars-work1.htm

....And the first "recognised" muscle car according to this site is the 1949 Oldsmobile

[jaunty75]

Originally Posted by Col Wickham

A good article on the birth of the muscle car on the web.
http://musclecars.howstuffworks.com/...cars-work1.htm

....And the first "recognised" muscle car according to this site is the 1949 Oldsmobile

Yes, but the article actually calls the '49 Olds a "muscle machine." Subtle difference there. Maybe too subtle to matter, but I would argue not.

[wmachine]

Originally Posted by Col Wickham

A good article on the birth of the muscle car on the web.
http://musclecars.howstuffworks.com/...cars-work1.htm

....And the first "recognised" muscle car according to this site is the 1949 Oldsmobile

Originally Posted by jaunty75

Yes, but the article actually calls the '49 Olds a "muscle machine." Subtle difference there. Maybe too subtle to matter, but I would argue not.

The article is essentially an editorial. The writer's opinion, not statements of fact. All due to using an undefined term as if it was a defined term.
To illustrate what I mean, re-read an article like that and replace the term "musclecar" with "factory high performace", and a lot gets revealed. What defines high performance? When used, it seems the "high perfromance" term begs for definition whereas the "musclecar" term doesn't, when neither one is well defined. Very broad terms.
And that writer obviously doesn't consider a musclecar to be the '60s GTO started stuff a big engine into a midsized affordable car.

[Oldsguy]

I have a friend that insists it isn't a muscle car unless it also has a 4 speed with next to no options except those related to performance. But I think he is wrong......

[wolfman98]

I do believe that the "musclecar" era really boomed in 64 with the advent of the GTO though at the time I am not too sure if that term was used to describe it. I am sure that you could find articles describing American muscle even before 1964 especially in some european magazines.

[70 cutlass s]

I think Fred Flintstone had the first musclecar. It looked like it took a lot of muscle to move that car.

[wolfman98]

Plus it had the added feature of being very reliable

[WhatIf]

There are many claims to what the first Musclecar was, but we have to read between the lines. If a Mopar guy writes the article, the Chrysler 300 was the first Musclecar, not the GTO. If an Oldsmobile fan writes the article, the 49 Olds was the first. If a Cadillac guys write it, it was the 49 Cadillac V8. The Chevy guys think the 57 Chevy fuelie was the first. Heck I've read where the Ford guys believe the 32 Ford Coupe was the first because of that nasty ol' 8-cylinder under the hood, the preferred car of Clyde Barrow.

But if we step back and look at the overall picture, it has to be the 64 GTO. I'm an Olds fan but I have to give credit where credit is due.

[cutlassgal]

Originally Posted by wolfman98

Plus it had the added feature of being very reliable

[mugzilla]

I guess hand cranking a Early Olds to start it took muscle ...

[63 F85 Cutlass]

"The Great One"

That just about says it all. Definitions, dates, and other data can be tossed around till the cows come home, but when all is said and done no car that is associated with the term muscle car more so than the GTO. This doesn't take away from the Rocket 88's, early hemis, the 409's or any of the other great performance vehicles to come before it, but the GTO embodied this new era of performance vehicles. Without it, who knows when or if many of the "muscle cars" we own or love would have even come to fruition.

[TK-65]

Originally Posted by WhatIf

Personally, I think the Oldsmobile guys had some real guts when they shoved that 68 H/O past GM corporate with a 455 engine. That was just as risky (if not more so) that what DeLorean did in 1964 with the GTO.

Olds didnt shove that car by GM, GM told them to build it.

[4speedBench]

To me I'd have to say early 50's Mopar. The D100 Dodge and the Chrysler letter cars were packing early Hemi's touted as the "most powerful V-8" (which they were at the time). This was the closest to "pushing" a car based on performance prior to the big time Marketing that the GTO started. I believe the GTO was the first full package: high performance engine, aggressive looks (stripes, etc) and marketed to the youth segment as a performance vehicle. But mopar was there first, just not as polished.

MHO

[Dan Wirth]

Originally Posted by WhatIf

There are many claims to what the first Musclecar was, but we have to read between the lines. If a Mopar guy writes the article, the Chrysler 300 was the first Musclecar, not the GTO. If an Oldsmobile fan writes the article, the 49 Olds was the first. If a Cadillac guys write it, it was the 49 Cadillac V8. The Chevy guys think the 57 Chevy fuelie was the first. Heck I've read where the Ford guys believe the 32 Ford Coupe was the first because of that nasty ol' 8-cylinder under the hood, the preferred car of Clyde Barrow.

But if we step back and look at the overall picture, it has to be the 64 GTO. I'm an Olds fan but I have to give credit where credit is due.

At a recent car show that I had visited, the first muscle car was a topic of conversation with a 57 Chevy owner. And WhatIf drove this home with me rather well.

The Chevy owner was convinced that his 57 was a first muscle car (not the first, but a first). I did not pursue the argument further because I really didn't know the answer (even though I thought I did at first) nor had I known at the time if there was a first muscle car or if it was a matter of fact or some smart person's bright idea.

I think most would like to think our cars have had a role in producing the first muscle car. I know that I do, even-though mine is close to tank size. Hey, but she'll do 0-60 in less than 8 seconds!

Interesting debate and am glad reading your excellent and thoughtful responses - thanks.

[Diego]

Originally Posted by 4speedBench

To me I'd have to say early 50's Mopar. The D100 Dodge and the Chrysler letter cars were packing early Hemi's touted as the "most powerful V-8" (which they were at the time). This was the closest to "pushing" a car based on performance prior to the big time Marketing that the GTO started. I believe the GTO was the first full package: high performance engine, aggressive looks (stripes, etc) and marketed to the youth segment as a performance vehicle. But mopar was there first, just not as polished.

I'm gonna take your comments apart, so if it appears somewhat abrasive, my apologies because it's not my intention at all.

There was no Dodge D100 unless it was a pickup truck, so if you're going to talk about early muscle, it would help to get the info right, no? So maybe it was a typo, which is perfectly understandable, but the D-500 package was introduced in 1956, the same year that the Plymouth Fury and DeSoto Adventurer were introduced. That's one year after the Chrysler C-300 was introduced.

And what about that 300? Sorry, 17-second times down the 1320 don't cut it.

What about the '57 Chevy that someone mentioned? Certainly the Chevy guy was coming from two perspectives: Chevys are better than everyone else, and that the top Fuelie engine was 283 hp - 1 hp/cid. Big frigging deal - how fast is the car? And it's not the first car with 1 hp/cid since I know the 300-B had 354 hp available a full year before. . . and how fast were they again?

Like I said before, the GTO is the only car that can truly be called the first musclecar (much to the chagrin of Mopar folks), but there were musclecars before the GTO.

[mugzilla]

Originally Posted by Diego

Like I said before, the GTO is the only car that can truly be called the first musclecar (much to the chagrin of Mopar folks), but there were musclecars before the GTO.

Existential Muscle ...

[Diego]

Hahaha!

[WhatIf]

Originally Posted by Diego

What about the '57 Chevy that someone mentioned? Certainly the Chevy guy was coming from two perspectives: Chevys are better than everyone else....

I don't care which side of this argument you're on, THAT was funny!!