ybicutty

Is a 1977 cutlass consider muscle car anyone..?

GAOldsman

I wouldn't consider it a "muscle car" with less than 200 hp. IMO True "muscle cars" weren't produced after '71 But there are ways to wake up the animal inside so to speak. Welcome aboard and you do have a sharp Cutlass there.

ybicutty

Pleasure to join the crew appreciate the answer I was thinking of big block could do the trick..?

SBORule

Muscle cars are usually considered pre-1973.

I sure do remember seeing alot 74-77 Cutlass's in NASCAR Races tho, so that would make them ...............

You use to see alot 0f 1975-79 Omega's in ARCA & Bush Grand national races during the early 80's as well.

w-30dreamin

Welcome to the board.

I think this topic is very controversial and subect to a wide range of personal opinions.
The important thing is we all love our Oldsmobiles and enjoy them in a fashion that makes us happy on our own level.

Happy motoring!

z11375ss

No.

KatanaMasta

sweet ride mines real similar!
of course its a muscle car! its got the macho looks and the aggressive poise, particularly if u get the salon with the rear sway bar an shorter ratio steering,, ooooh theyre low on horses big deal,, compared to the other PITIFUL automotive offerings available in the late 70's the good ol rocket still held a definitive edge,,
so heres wut u do: throw sum sick paint on there, an then either trick ur existing engine or just swap it, easy as that,,
i stuffed headers on mine an deleted all the smog krapp an i'll outrun most anything on the road! when i git $$$ i'll do a cam an full msd and mess with the heads etc,, the sky's the limit!
a muscle car is popularly defined as a mid to small bodied car with edgy, intimidating looks and immense power and noise,, u'll often hear that the late 80's gnx was the last true muscle car,, well guess wut: if a rebadged, hopped up late 80's regal can be considered a muscle car, then why the hell not the last year of the a-body cutlass??

KatanaMasta

the third pic is of a different car, for wut its worth,,
unless u modified abuncha stuff real fast just for the 3rd pic,,,,,,,,

Redog

No, only because that car did not come from the factory with the power. Drop in a bigger and or better motor, yes

OldMechanik

No "muscle cars" after 1973, but many cars were still cool and can be made muscular very easilly and fairly legally.
I would gladly take a 77....and feed it steroids!

sammy

x2

oldolds88

i bought a 77 cs new in 77. bright red/half vinyl top in black,black buckets console 350,and non factory t-tops. they were install by the dealer in a local shop. had to sell it in 80 so i could buy my house. wish i had that car back,it was so sweet.

Kyle's 77 Cutlass

x3...............oh wait I already have one. Just need the roids

AZ455

What happened after 1973? I was thinking EGR, but wasn't 1973 the first year of that? Also still no cats yet in 1974, and still the same 8.5:1 compression. Can't speak for 1975 and later. Just curious.

MDchanic

Muscle cars were lighter-bodied cars (generally mid-size, but some Camaros, Firebirds, and Mustangs qualify) equipped by the factory with engines that had been designed for big cars, often with additional factory performance modifications, such as cams and carbs.

There were few to none of those after 1972, except perhaps for a few "pace cars" and other low-production quirks.

If you want to put a big motor in your car, go ahead, I recommend it - you'll have a "hot rod," but not a "muscle car."

- Eric

77vista

Welcome from another 77 owner!

That Rocket 350 has plenty of get up and go. My Cruiser sure flies when I open up the secondaries

Muscle car or not. Its a full bodied American car. Enjoy it!

Intragration

From the factory I don't think you can really call a '77 Cutlass a muscle car. Add a couple hundred horsepower though and who cares what it was considererd from the factory?!

GAOldsman

With less dough than it would take to build a big block you could wake up that 350 with a better top end and some mods to the distributor. New heads, cam, lifters, intake, carb, chunk the smog stuff and better exhaust should do the trick.

If you want to do it right, it will take more dough and opt for the bottom end too. New pistons, rings, bearings, a little machine work along with the top end and then you'll need a better rear end and transmission beef up.

I guess it depends on your budget, condition of the bottom end and just how much power you want to make. ~3,700 lbs with ~170 hp is what your working with. Personally I would try to make around 300-350 hp with the original engine and it should be more than plenty fun without too much $$$ Again just my opinion.

bigmanaus

I will say this about the '77 Cutlass. In my opinion it is one of the prettiest models that cutlass ever came out in their history with MAYBE the exception of the '70 or the '72 models. And as far as it being a muscle car, it can be with a few modifications under the hood. These cars will house any engine Olds ever made including just the year before (in 1976) offering a 455 as an option. I recently purchased a '77 black on black supreme brougham with very few miles and loaded to the hilt. I am adding total performance to the car with a 1969 C heads 455 motor built to produce between 400 and 500 HP with the original A/C, air cleaner, cruise, and dual exhaust and relitively quiet turbo mufflers on it. This will be a beautiful original Cutlass that is the "sleeper from hell". The way Olds would have built it if they could have gotten by the strict restrictions of the EPA regulations and all at the time. I am looking very forward to driving this car on a regular basis

442much

What makes a muscle car? Is it the engine or the body style? Is a 1964 442 a muscle car with the 330 engine? In 1968/69 the 455 was not a musclecar engine. It was a luxury car engine. The 400 was the muscle car engine in those years as it was the largest engine (technically) allowed in an A body. However they did put a luxo-engine in an A body. Did that make the 68/69 Hurst a muscle car? Sure, after some tweeking and mods. Did it make the 455 a muscle car engine? Yes again. Classic definition is a large engine in an intermediate body. Mustangs, Camaro's, Trans-Ams, Challengers, Cuda's are Pony cars. The Corvette is a Sports car. So they don't count.

In 1970 the 455 was a muscle car engine. It was the smallest engine in a 442 and the largest engine in any muscle car. In 1971 horsepower rating went from gross HP (reading what the engine put out in a controlled environment) to net horse power (what the real world rating was with accessories hooked up). So the 455 with 365 gross HP in 1970 vs. the 455 in 1971 with net 300 HP isn't a fair comparisson. Both were about the same.

From 1971-1976 the 455 was still a muscle car engine (because they were big blocks placed in intermediate bodies), and although they were detuned and choked with emmission controls of the day, the monster was still lurking inside and could still be awakened.

I did that with mine. I do not have a Holley carb or aftermarket manifold. I don't have headers or an MSD distributor. It's all Oldsmobile, (Rochester, Olds manifold, W/Z manifolds and Delco HEI) however I have set the beast free. Many years ago I had a light to light (don't do it anymore because it's stupid) with a 1971 442 W30. I got off first where his bumper was in line with my passenger mirror. I couldn't pull away, but he couldn't catch up. Same result for three lights.

Muscle cars are also about handling. The later 73-77 were better handling cars than the previous cars and had better stopping power. Some say there are no muscle cars built after 1973. There are Japanese cars today with 6 cylinder engines that will eat a classic big block muscle car right off the show room floor, with the air conditioning on and getting 30 MPG while doing it.

Maybe no one wants to call my 455 a muscle car engine or my body style a muscle car...but she can smoke the tires off the rims just like her older sisters and in my younger days, win or loose, she won a lot of respect for Oldsmobile among the Ford, Chev and Mopar guys. From 1977-80 her streamlined body won the 79 and 80 Daytona 500 while setting the fastest 500 mile race...ever. Has that record been beaten yet?

What makes a muscle car is a tricky question. Just when you think you have the answer, something else always comes along and re-defines it again. Even some new pick ups can whoop the old cars, but bang for the buck, nothing can beat them.

GAOldsman

Well said Ken

442much

Why, thank you Scott.

priorityone

i have to say the older bodies win the muscle car name itself but latter bodie style and options i would have to say since i had a late 70s cutliss and early 80s regail G bodie i guted down to bare bones and made it into a muscle machine. i called it a ganmma car with a heart of muscle. but not technicly a muscle car... but on the other hand there was muscle cars that are station wagon style so i feel yes what you do to it to give it part muscle id say "NOT YOUR RUN OF THE MILL MUSCLE CAR" would be more accurite.and who is to say that it cant be i called all old overpowered cars MUSCLE MACHINES WITH THE HEART OF A MUSCLE CAR" ive got thing for chopped tops suicied doors and the roar of a well tuned muscle car. customezid rides are my favorite thing to see where you say to yourself wow im not sure what that was.. side tracked for a moment..... but to give a straight answer call it what it is to you.

w-30dreamin

Just like I said...look at all the opinions.
The following is copied and pasted from Wikipedia

Muscle car is a term used to refer to a variety of high-performance automobiles.[1] The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines muscle cars as "any of a group of American-made 2-door sports coupes with powerful engines designed for high-performance driving."[2] A large V8 engine is fitted in a 2-door, rear wheel drive, family-style mid-size or full-size car designed for four or more passengers. Sold at an affordable price, muscle cars are intended for mainly street use and occasional drag racing.[3][4][5][6] They are distinct from two-seat sports cars and expensive 2+2 GTs intended for high-speed touring and road racing. Developed simultaneously in their own markets, muscle cars also emerged from manufacturers in Australia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere.



According to Muscle Cars, a book written by Peter Henshaw, a "muscle car" is "exactly what the name implies. It is a product of the American car industry adhering to the hot rodder's philosophy of taking a small car and putting a large-displacement engine in it. The Muscle Car is Charles Atlas kicking sand in the face of the 98 horsepower weakling."[7] Henshaw further asserts that the muscle car was designed for straight-line speed, and did not have the "sophisticated chassis", "engineering integrity", or "lithe appearance" of European high-performance cars.[7]
However, opinions vary as to whether high-performance full-size cars, compacts, and pony cars qualify as muscle cars.[8]





1949 Rocket 88 engine



Hudson Hornet: Rocket 88's only competitor


Opinions on the origin of the muscle car vary, but the 1949 Oldsmobile Rocket 88, created in response to public interest in speed and power, is often cited as the first muscle car. It featured America's first high-compression overhead valve V8 in the smaller, lighter Oldsmobile 76/Chevy body for six-cylinder engines (as opposed to bigger Olds 98 luxury body).[9]
Musclecars magazine wrote: "[t]he idea of putting a full-size V8 under the hood of an intermediate body and making it run like Jesse Owens in Berlin belongs to none other than Oldsmobile... [The] all-new ohv V8...Rocket engine quickly found its way into the lighter 76 series body, and in February 1949, the new 88 series was born."[10]
The article continued: "Walt Woron of Motor Trend enjoyed the 'quick-flowing power...that pins you to your seat and keeps you there until you release your foot from the throttle [...] Olds dominated the performance landscape in 1950, including wins in the NASCAR Grand National division, Daytona Speed Weeks, and the 2100-plus-mile Carrera Panamericana. In (Belgium), an 88 won a production car race at Spa-Francorchamps [...] A husky V8 in a cleanly styled, lightweight coupe body, the original musclecar truly was the '49 Olds 88."[10]
Jack Nerad wrote in Driving Today, "the Rocket V-8 set the standard for every American V-8 engine that would follow it for at least three decades[...] With a displacement of 303 cubic inches and topped by a two-barrel carburetor, the first Rocket V-8 churned out 135 hp (101 kW; 137 PS)at 3,600 rpm and 263 pound-feet of torque at a lazy 1800 rpm [and] no mid-range car in the world, save the Hudson Hornet, came close to the Rocket Olds performance potential..."
Nerad added that the Rocket 88 was "the hit of NASCAR’s 1950 season, winning eight of the 10 races. Given its lightning-like success, one could clearly make the case that the Olds 88 with its 135 horsepower (101 kW) V-8 was the first 'musclecar'..."[11]
Steve Dulcich, writing in Popular Hot Rodding, also cites Oldsmobile, concurrently with Cadillac, as having "launched the modern era of the high-performance V-8 with the introduction of the 'Rocket 88' overhead-valve V8 in 1949

Bunser

Some interesting replies, but the short answer is no.

RetroRanger

I had a girl tell me my car is not a muscle car cuz its blue ( ok light blue). It was hard to argue back cuz it is light blue.

Mostly it can be agreed that 73 is the cut off date for "muscle cars" I think any car that embodies the muscle car style can be considered a muscle car that goes for your cutlass too. IMHO the muscle car style is mags, motor, chrome and "the look" does that mean dog dishes are out of course not its difficult to say what exactly is a muscle car (just look at these replies)

w-30 dreamin got it with "The important thing is we all love our Oldsmobiles and enjoy them in a fashion that makes us happy on our own level"

if you want to call it a muscle car thats Ok w me...I still call mine a muscle car despite the color LOL

72 w29 all green

We had a '77 Supreme new and never referred to it as a "muscle car". It was just another every day grocery-getter like the lime green '71 Cutlass that it replaced. The '77 was a very comfortable car (interior, ride, handling), but for some reason we had problems with that engine within the first couple years .

brown7373

Opinions on what exactly defines a muscle car vary, and have been argued endlessly. Most people consider the GTO the first muscle car, and the muscle car era was 1964 through 1972. Individuals have been modifying cars since cars were produced, stripping off weight and increasing horsepower. Manufacturers have put high performance engines in smaller cars long before the 64 GTO, but that isn't what most consider a musclecar. The 64 GTO and soon after the 442, the MOPARs etc., etc. were models specifically sold and MARKETED for their high performance. You had to live through the 60s to appreciate this. TV and magazine ads presented these specific cars as "hot cars", "fast cars", "street racers", "drag racers", and they were made in large numbers by the factory. Anyone could run down to their local dealer and buy a ready to run, hot machine, in any color, hardtop or convertible.

Sure, the Olds 88 was hot for it's time, but it was never promoted as a "racer" the way the muscle cars of the 64-72 period were. The Hudson was also fast, as was the Studebaker with the right engine, but they were few and far between, and they were not promoted as a model designed for performance the way the 64-72 cars were.

So is your car a musclecar? No, not by what most people accept as the definition, because it didn't come from the factory as a high performance car and it was not promoted as such. But that doesn't mean you can't increase performance and make it muscular, and make it ride and handle and be more comfortable than the original "musclecars".

jrzybob442

Actually, Marty Schorr, then the editor of Hi Performance Cars Magazine seems to be the one who coined the term “muscle car” in the September 1966 issue of the magazine, with a test of the 1966 Mercury Cyclone GT. This is considered the first mention of "MUSCLECAR" in any published document. You can read this test here: http://wildaboutcarsonline.com/cgi-bin/pub9990262549620.cgi?categoryid=9940392499872&acti on=viewad&itemid=9990413721629 .

If you’d like to see what Marty is doing now, you can access his Blog: “Car Guy Chronicles” thru this link: http://wildaboutcarsonline.com/cgi-bin/pub9990385412547.cgi?categoryid=9990385412547&acti on=viewad&itemid=9990392818372

Prior to this and well afterwards into the 70's, what we call muscle cars were called "supercars".

You should understand that both the term “muscle car” and “supercar”, were just a journalistic means to identify a group of American performance cars. The first mention of what we call muscle cars (then called supercars) was defined in Car Life Magazine in an article in their May 1965 issue, which you can find here: http://wildaboutcarsonline.com/cgi-bin/pub9990391350594.cgi?itemid=9990392380895&action=v iewad&categoryid=9950392079962

The article can be downloaded by clicking this link: http://wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990392380895/1965-05_CL_The_American_Supercars_1-2.pdf

I, myself, stick to the 1965 Car Life definition.

Bob

Kyle's 77 Cutlass

I second that

DeltaPace77

Wouldn't call anything from the mid/late 70's a muscle car, although some looked the part. My 77' Delta Pace Car had a 403 and 2.41 open axle from the factory and did ok. The suspension was pure float luxury too. All of that's changed now, with custom built 455, 3.73 posi axle, and 700R4 tranny, to keep highway cruising at stock rpm's. Suspensions all different too, with firmer springs, sway bars and Bilstein shocks. Didn't even have a rear bar from the factory, but wears a 1.5" Herb Adams bar back there now. Wider 8.5" rims and 255 rubber all around. Don't know what you'd call it now, except leaving most factory muscle cars in the dust.

oldcutlass

Hmmm the definitiion of muscle was relative to the era. There were cars built after 73 that met those olden day standards! Olds did not have many offerings after that, but Chevy, Ford, Mopar, Buick, Pontiac, AMC, et al had offerings. Not muscular, but muscle looking!

As mentioned above, anything can be made into a muscle car!

1970 Post

A lot of people believe the Trans am and Camaro was a muscle care until 81. They were low horse power comparing to the pre 71. I don't mind those cars but I made a couple Burt Renolds wannabe's pissed ( had the jackets annd hats LOL) when I made the comment muscle cars ended in the early 70's. I guess its all opinion. In my opinion 64-72ish was the original muscle car era. But Hot Rods are of all breads and years.

macrover

2x

I also have to say well said, Ken


Easy now, easy. Sooo, did I miss the light blue muscle car disclaimer? lol What's going on here???? What's the deal with light blue?

Seriously though, muscle car...supercar...pony car...or whatever label suits a person, enjoy what you have and have a good time driving it.

Redog

This Ken has to agree with Ken also.

I'm looking at buying a new DD, but I want something with some speed to it. I'm looking at a used Volvo wagon or sedan. I-5 turbo engine putting out 300 HP and 295 Ftlbs of torque and awd to boot. Off the line that will smoke a lot of older muscle cars.

A lot of V-6's today are turning aroud the 300 HP mark. Not just from Japan either. American and Korean cars are doing the same today. Hell about 7 years ago, remember the Suburu STi? 300hp 300 ft/lbs and running a 12.80 in the 1/4 right off the showroom floor I don't believe the 442, Camaro, Chargers and whatever else in the 1960'-1970's were doing that in the 1/4 mile right from the factory.

Young kids today see just about any big car with a big engine a "muscle" car. My Delta, both of them, have been refered to as muscle cars by little kids. I felt as though they were not because they didn't have the power. Muscle cars run a lot faster in the 1/4 mile than 18.50's

oldcutlass

My .02, sorry todays lil 4 and 6 cly fart boxes just don't turn me on. Yeah I know the youngins go apeshit over em, I gotta have a V8. There's rumers that Ford is getting ready to genuflect to the younger crowd with the Mustang, so sad!

DeltaPace77

I agree, many of the late model V6 cars really move, as my daily car's a Pontiac GXP with 3.6L DOHC and 6 speed auto. Really think you're overstating the Volvo I-5 turbo wagon and Subi STI a bit though. My GXP really puts the hurt on my brothers I-5 turbo wagon, and a stock STI's not in the 12's. Many owners build a lot more boost with bigger turbo's, so who knows what you're really seeing. Hmm, someone hopping up a factory car to go faster, wonder where that idea came from.

Bronco Fan

Here are the criteria for what I think make a car a muscle car:

1. Built by an American car manufacturer.
2. Intermidiate sized rear wheel drive, two door car excluding pony cars and/or sports cars
3. Built from 1964 to 1972.
4. Factory equipped with a V8 engine considered more powerful than standard at the time of manufacture.

I think if a car falls outside these parameters, it becomes open for debate as to what it should be called. Can anyone come up with an example of a car which fits the description above that could not be considered a muscle car?

I do think there are several cars which fall outside these parameters which could be considered muscle cars, but to me these seem like commonly accepted guidelines. Fun discussion!

MDchanic

Olds Turnpike Cruiser / Cutlass SX.

- Eric

Bronco Fan

Ok. What disqualifies these as muscle cars? Perhaps I've left something out.