Is a 1977 cutlass consider muscle car anyone..?
February 8th, 2013, 05:23 PM
#41
Connoisseur d'Junque
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The Hudson Valley
Posts: 21,183
February 8th, 2013, 05:50 PM
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Brazil Indiana
Posts: 11,536
LOL, I think the term "muscle car" has evolved to mean much more than it should. I think some Schmuck a long time ago said it had to have at least 1 HP per 10 lbs. If that is true there are alot of cars from the 60s and 70s that are not muscle cars.
I don't think even then there was real rules as to what made a muscle car but maybe i am wrong.
I don't think even then there was real rules as to what made a muscle car but maybe i am wrong.
February 9th, 2013, 08:22 PM
#46
Senior Moment Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,921
Had a very good friend with a 77. He built the 350 to street/strip specs. The car was as slow as molasses in January. No gear and an automatic tranny with a tight converter. Slow, slow, slow. Very nice car but the wrong platform to be quick. Therefore this car was NOT a musclecar, IMO. Enjoy YOUR car, who gives a rat's rear what other's think.
Last edited by z11375ss; February 9th, 2013 at 10:13 PM.
February 9th, 2013, 08:51 PM
#47
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: American Canyon, California
Posts: 127
When the oil embargo ended the "muscle car wars" going on with the big 3, because of emissions and better fuel economy needs, the engines in cars made after that had a lot less horsepower than they used to. I think THAT is when the "muscle car war " era ended. Cars changed quite a bit after that. I dont think people refer to cars after 73 as weak and shitty, they were just not like pre 1972. So that being said, "muscle cars" came from that "muscle car war" era. Hell, my new Dodge truck has more horsepower than any Olds made in the muscle car era, but its not a muscle car!
February 9th, 2013, 09:22 PM
#48
Connoisseur d'Junque
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The Hudson Valley
Posts: 21,183
February 10th, 2013, 07:49 AM
#50
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,620
Not sure why some are hung up at 1973 for the end of the muscle car. What about a 1974 Super Duty Firebird? That's a low-compression car that will give plenty of high-compression Olds muscle cars a run for their money.
Even a 1973 4-4-2 with a 455 is a muscle car. Certainly it wasn't to the level of 1970, but it still was fast. And what about other brands? The 440 was still being installed in the Plymouth Road Runner (the GTX package) through 1974; ditto for the Charger, and they both put out 280 net horsepower. Buick had the Stage 1, which was possibly the fastest of the bunch save the Super Duty. Only Ford stopped trying to make fast cars, relying on the 351 Cobra Jet as its top dog.
I even saw someone say 1971 . . . really? C'mon, guys, 1974 is a much more appropriate end date. Does that mean a '76 Trans Am is not a muscle car? I wouldn't kick it out of bed, that's for sure, but I think we get caught up with the definition too much without paying attention to the seat-of-the-pants feeling.
Even a 1973 4-4-2 with a 455 is a muscle car. Certainly it wasn't to the level of 1970, but it still was fast. And what about other brands? The 440 was still being installed in the Plymouth Road Runner (the GTX package) through 1974; ditto for the Charger, and they both put out 280 net horsepower. Buick had the Stage 1, which was possibly the fastest of the bunch save the Super Duty. Only Ford stopped trying to make fast cars, relying on the 351 Cobra Jet as its top dog.
I even saw someone say 1971 . . . really? C'mon, guys, 1974 is a much more appropriate end date. Does that mean a '76 Trans Am is not a muscle car? I wouldn't kick it out of bed, that's for sure, but I think we get caught up with the definition too much without paying attention to the seat-of-the-pants feeling.
February 10th, 2013, 08:14 AM
#51
Connoisseur d'Junque
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The Hudson Valley
Posts: 21,183
We can quibble about the exact year, but I doubt many of us would argue that the OP's run-of-the-mill 1977 Cutlass is a muscle car, which was the question about six months ago.
- Eric
- Eric
February 10th, 2013, 09:58 AM
#53
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central IN
Posts: 1,226
LOL, I think the term "muscle car" has evolved to mean much more than it should. I think some Schmuck a long time ago said it had to have at least 1 HP per 10 lbs. If that is true there are alot of cars from the 60s and 70s that are not muscle cars.
I don't think even then there was real rules as to what made a muscle car but maybe i am wrong.
I don't think even then there was real rules as to what made a muscle car but maybe i am wrong.
My rule(s) for a true 'muscle car' are it must be mid/intermediate size platform (GM A-body, Ford Fairlane/Torino, Mopar B-Body, etc..) and have a big block V8 from the factory.
Nothing with a small block qualifies and GM F-bodies, Mustangs, Challengers/'Cudas are 'pony cars'.
'Vettes, Cobras, etc... are sports cars.
Soo. In short...
No. A Cutlass with an SBO is not a muscle car.
February 10th, 2013, 11:05 AM
#54
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: American Canyon, California
Posts: 127
My answer wins. Go back 3 or 4 posts. Its an "ERA" thing. Everybody wants to have a muscle car, but, to be called a muscle car, you should fit into that ERA! If you want your 77, 83, or 91 car to fit into a cool ERA, why not call it a "Pre- Donk" - LOL!!
All sorts of cool fast bad-*** cars have been coming out since the mid '70's with tons of power and muscle. They just arent part of that historical muscle war ERA.
Its like trying to call yourself Generation X (which sounds really cool, by the way), when you're Generation Y.
Just sayin'
All sorts of cool fast bad-*** cars have been coming out since the mid '70's with tons of power and muscle. They just arent part of that historical muscle war ERA.
Its like trying to call yourself Generation X (which sounds really cool, by the way), when you're Generation Y.
Just sayin'
February 10th, 2013, 12:44 PM
#55
Found this definition. Looks good to me. http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclec...finition.shtml
February 10th, 2013, 01:05 PM
#56
Connoisseur d'Junque
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The Hudson Valley
Posts: 21,183
I can live with their definition.
They have also thoughtfully provided a list of cars that are and are not muscle cars, for those who have trouble with rules ad categories.
I have reprinted their definition below. It comes from here (I would link the whole quote, but then it would be blue, underlined, and illegible).
"Strict Definition of a Muscle Car:
A muscle car, by the strictest definition, is an intermediate sized, performance oriented model, powered by a large V8 engine, at an affordable price. Most of these models were based on "regular" production vehicles. These vehicles are generally not considered muscle cars, even when equipped with large V8s. If there was a high performance version available, it gets the credit, and not the vehicle that it was based on.
Examples: Buick GS, Chevrolete Chevelle SS, Dodge Charger R/T, Ford Torino/Cobra, Plymouth GTX, Plymouth Road Runner, Oldsmobile 442, Pontiac GTO
Fullsize Muscle Car:
The strict definition only includes intermediate size vehicles. In reality, performance oriented intermediate size vehicles didn't appear until 1964. Before then, manufacturers took existing fullsize vehicles and added extra performance to them. Because of this, the early fullsize performance vehicles are generally considered muscle cars.
Examples: Chevrolet Impala (SS only), Ford Galaxie (with 390 + cid engines only), Dodge Coronet (R/Ts only), etc.
Pony Cars and Compact Cars:
In addition to fullsize and intermediate muscle cars, a number of smaller vehicles started appearing on the automotive performance scene. These new "pony cars" and compact cars are generally considered muscle cars only if they have the top of the line performance engines and options.
Examples: Chevrolet Camaro (SS and Z28 models only), Ford Mustang (GTs and Boss only), Plymouth 'Cudas (no Barracudas), AMC Javelin, etc.
Personal Luxury Cars and Luxury Cars:
Although there were several personal luxury vehicles with performance engines and options, their heavy weight and high sticker prices went against the low cost performance definition of muscle cars. Therefore, they are not considered muscle cars.
Examples: Buick Riviera, Chrysler 300 Letter Cars, Pontiac Grand Prix, etc.
Two Seat Sports Cars:
Two seat sports cars such as the Chevrolet Corvette and the Ford Thunderbird are not considered muscle cars due to their high price and specialty nature. The only exception is the AMC AMX as it was relatively cheap, and was based on the AMC Javalin pony car.
Examples: AMC AMX, etc."
They have also thoughtfully provided a list of cars that are and are not muscle cars, for those who have trouble with rules ad categories.
I have reprinted their definition below. It comes from here (I would link the whole quote, but then it would be blue, underlined, and illegible).
"Strict Definition of a Muscle Car:
A muscle car, by the strictest definition, is an intermediate sized, performance oriented model, powered by a large V8 engine, at an affordable price. Most of these models were based on "regular" production vehicles. These vehicles are generally not considered muscle cars, even when equipped with large V8s. If there was a high performance version available, it gets the credit, and not the vehicle that it was based on.
Examples: Buick GS, Chevrolete Chevelle SS, Dodge Charger R/T, Ford Torino/Cobra, Plymouth GTX, Plymouth Road Runner, Oldsmobile 442, Pontiac GTO
Fullsize Muscle Car:
The strict definition only includes intermediate size vehicles. In reality, performance oriented intermediate size vehicles didn't appear until 1964. Before then, manufacturers took existing fullsize vehicles and added extra performance to them. Because of this, the early fullsize performance vehicles are generally considered muscle cars.
Examples: Chevrolet Impala (SS only), Ford Galaxie (with 390 + cid engines only), Dodge Coronet (R/Ts only), etc.
Pony Cars and Compact Cars:
In addition to fullsize and intermediate muscle cars, a number of smaller vehicles started appearing on the automotive performance scene. These new "pony cars" and compact cars are generally considered muscle cars only if they have the top of the line performance engines and options.
Examples: Chevrolet Camaro (SS and Z28 models only), Ford Mustang (GTs and Boss only), Plymouth 'Cudas (no Barracudas), AMC Javelin, etc.
Personal Luxury Cars and Luxury Cars:
Although there were several personal luxury vehicles with performance engines and options, their heavy weight and high sticker prices went against the low cost performance definition of muscle cars. Therefore, they are not considered muscle cars.
Examples: Buick Riviera, Chrysler 300 Letter Cars, Pontiac Grand Prix, etc.
Two Seat Sports Cars:
Two seat sports cars such as the Chevrolet Corvette and the Ford Thunderbird are not considered muscle cars due to their high price and specialty nature. The only exception is the AMC AMX as it was relatively cheap, and was based on the AMC Javalin pony car.
Examples: AMC AMX, etc."
February 10th, 2013, 10:56 PM
#57
Registered User
Join Date: May 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 2,203
February 11th, 2013, 05:16 AM
#58
Trying to remember member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,112
For sure. Especially something that is a dead horse to begin with. I don't know why there are concerted attempts to define a musclecar. Since this is a coined phrase that was not even used "back in the day", there is no "correct definition" of what the term means. *Any* definition is an opinion and nothing more. There are no "facts" here (other than what Bob posted on June 21st). Nothing wrong with expressing opinions, but it is absurd to state them as facts. And thus even more absurd to try to determine whether any particular car is something that has no definition. This particular topic has been tossed around countless times over the years with invariably the same ambiguous results. No wonder.
February 11th, 2013, 06:20 AM
#59
"Car"mudgeon
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Perry, GA
Posts: 5,191
This is a discussion forum and some of the newer guys or veterans here have not read into this or voiced their opinions, in which they are quite free to do so. If you choose not to partake in the active discussion you are free to ignore it.
As far as the AMC Javelin, SST Rebel, Scrambler or the AMX for that matters could've been had with the 390 big block and in '71 could've been had with the 401. So definitely not all pony cars for sure.
As far as the AMC Javelin, SST Rebel, Scrambler or the AMX for that matters could've been had with the 390 big block and in '71 could've been had with the 401. So definitely not all pony cars for sure.
February 11th, 2013, 08:30 AM
#60
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,039
February 11th, 2013, 08:31 AM
#61
Trying to remember member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,112
I'll presume your comment is directed at me. Hard to tell, because your response does not indicate you really read what I said. I specifically said "Nothing wrong with expressing opinions", so I suggest you completely read an answer before *you* criticize it becoming the pot calling the kettle black.
February 11th, 2013, 08:42 AM
#62
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,620
Found this definition. Looks good to me. http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclec...finition.shtml
So, against my better judgment, I clicked on the link. An AMX is a muscle car but a Javelin with the same motor is not?
February 11th, 2013, 08:43 AM
#63
Connoisseur d'Junque
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The Hudson Valley
Posts: 21,183
It's a non-expression with no true meaning (though, of course, I'll argue all day that my definition is correct
). I guess the reason it irks me whenever the question comes up is that, to me, asking the question at all seems to stink of egotism. Someone wants to be able to show off in front of others, saying , "I have a muscle car" (whatever that is).
If you've got a muscle car, enjoy it.
If you want a muscle car, go out and buy one.
If you just bought some car and you don't even know whether its a muscle car, but you want a bunch of strangers to give you permission to call it one, then, in my book, you're SOL. Buy the car you like and enjoy it for what it is. Don't try to call it some "special" name because you think it will magically make your dipstick longer.
- Eric
February 11th, 2013, 08:55 AM
#64
69CuttyS
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Ottawa Canada
Posts: 200
I think that the original reply from GAOldsman is correct. Technically, it's not a classic muscle car, but it has a V8, and there are ways (fairly straight forward) to awaken the beast within. This is not really possible at all with a later era car like a Camry...
February 11th, 2013, 10:07 AM
#65
"Car"mudgeon
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Perry, GA
Posts: 5,191
Don't mention it
My comment was in lieu of not only your implication of beating a dead horse but to any and all pessimistic people that care to not partake in the actual discussion but would rather pick others opinions apart and direct them to wild about cars (talk about beating a dead horse) as you do in every single post. And to those that smug or scoff at the ones that ask questions that to some may be elementary based on experience but instead choose to blindly direct them to "find it yourself" at WAC.
Sure there is a wealth of info there but it is by far not the only apple on the tree nor is it easy to navigate in certain instances. So in short if you will I have my opinion just as everyone else is entitled to. I think it's sad (to me of course) that I use to look up to you and Bob as gurus of the hobby because in the of info you have amassed, experienced and shared but now instead of simply answering questions you choose to direct them towards the answers at your website. Most of the info that we have is not always cut and dry as one might expect and more times than not even factory literature is subject to interpretation which is not healthy for the hobby because of misinterpretation.
I know right 
Thank you Keith and as others agree, disagree or agree to disagree the term Muscle Car is interpreted differently by not only different generations but different locales as well.
My comment was in lieu of not only your implication of beating a dead horse but to any and all pessimistic people that care to not partake in the actual discussion but would rather pick others opinions apart and direct them to wild about cars (talk about beating a dead horse) as you do in every single post. And to those that smug or scoff at the ones that ask questions that to some may be elementary based on experience but instead choose to blindly direct them to "find it yourself" at WAC.
Sure there is a wealth of info there but it is by far not the only apple on the tree nor is it easy to navigate in certain instances. So in short if you will I have my opinion just as everyone else is entitled to. I think it's sad (to me of course) that I use to look up to you and Bob as gurus of the hobby because in the of info you have amassed, experienced and shared but now instead of simply answering questions you choose to direct them towards the answers at your website. Most of the info that we have is not always cut and dry as one might expect and more times than not even factory literature is subject to interpretation which is not healthy for the hobby because of misinterpretation.
Thank you Keith and as others agree, disagree or agree to disagree the term Muscle Car is interpreted differently by not only different generations but different locales as well.
February 11th, 2013, 11:18 AM
#66
For those of you who .... "can't open the links" in my original post, it is because you are not a member of WAC. It takes two minutes to sign up and AND you will have access to over 100 THOUSAND pages of Factory material - over 35K of Olds material alone.
Sign up for goodness sake - it's FREE!
Sign up for goodness sake - it's FREE!
Last edited by jrzybob442; February 11th, 2013 at 11:22 AM.
February 11th, 2013, 11:21 AM
#67
Also - the size of the motor had nothing to do with whether it was considered a muscle car ("supercar") or not - merely the performance. A W-31 is definitely a muscle car - and if you don't think so try lining up against one in your 71 W-30.
But as Kurt said, the term was popularized long after the manufacturers did away with the whole idea.
But as Kurt said, the term was popularized long after the manufacturers did away with the whole idea.
February 11th, 2013, 12:39 PM
#69
Just an Olds Guy
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB. And "I am Can 'eh' jun - eh"
Posts: 24,525
February 11th, 2013, 12:48 PM
#71
IMO the answer is definitely no. It's my Grandmother's car. Seriously, she had one of these. That doesn't take away from the fact that it is an excellent vehicle. I believe it is more in line with the Grand Torismo (GT) concept. A combination of luxury, comfort, and performance design to propel it's occupants down the freeway quietly and comfortably. And I'll be the first to admit my 1969 Cutlass, with it's single exhaust, drum brakes, and meager horse power isn't really a muscle car either.
By the way, I like your 1975 Cutlass and I thought about getting one.
By the way, I like your 1975 Cutlass and I thought about getting one.
February 11th, 2013, 01:19 PM
#72
delete
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 2,807
BTW - I am sure they make twin turbo kits or something like that if some knucklehead wants to hot rod his Camry.
February 11th, 2013, 02:09 PM
#74
Registered User
Join Date: May 2012
Location: West Central Illinois
Posts: 6
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.
February 11th, 2013, 02:21 PM
#75
Just an Olds Guy
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB. And "I am Can 'eh' jun - eh"
Posts: 24,525
February 11th, 2013, 04:16 PM
#76
Connoisseur d'Junque
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The Hudson Valley
Posts: 21,183
OH NOOOOOO!!!
Now we have to agree on a definition for "GT." "GT" was originally an expression used to refer to cars that ran the European "Grand Tour" road races, and came to be accepted as describing four-seater sports cars.
However, the letters (and words, as in the Ford Gran Torino), have been so abused by auto manufacturers over the years that I think it is safe to say that, unlike the term "muscle car," which means almost nothing, the letters "GT" mean absolutely nothing.
I may have to unsubscribe...
- Eric
February 11th, 2013, 04:22 PM
#77
Funny thing is, I once owned a 1969 Ford Torino GT, and it definitely wasn't a sports car. Mustang GTs aren't really sports car either, are the? Seriously, I don't know.
But your definition is on track in most circles.
But your definition is on track in most circles.
February 11th, 2013, 06:49 PM
#79
Connoisseur d'Junque
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The Hudson Valley
Posts: 21,183
