Is a 1977 cutlass consider muscle car anyone..?
February 11th, 2013, 08:48 PM
#81
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Goldsboro, NC
Posts: 30
The good old 77 Cutlass. I had one of these years ago that I scooped up for 700 bucks. I later sold it before I shipped off to basic training for $1200. The guy drove a few states to pick it up, and said he would have gave me the same amoutn for the rims and tires I had on it. He stated he was truning it into a dirt track race car.
As soon as I let it go, my passion for the Olds started. All my friends use to ride in the back seat, even if there was nobody up front. Very roomy!
As soon as I let it go, my passion for the Olds started. All my friends use to ride in the back seat, even if there was nobody up front. Very roomy!
February 11th, 2013, 10:27 PM
#82
I remember reading a magazine article many years ago defining a muscle car as a mid-sized two door personal sedan typically under 4000 pounds with 300 horse power or more.
Personally I don't feel a muscle car has to come from s factory. The muscle cars from the pre-1973 era have become so rare and/or expensive.
Nowadays it is perfectly acceptable to make your own from what you have.
Some suspension mods ,meaty tires and a potent power train can convert any mid-size personal sedan into a brawler.
Personally I don't feel a muscle car has to come from s factory. The muscle cars from the pre-1973 era have become so rare and/or expensive.
Nowadays it is perfectly acceptable to make your own from what you have.
Some suspension mods ,meaty tires and a potent power train can convert any mid-size personal sedan into a brawler.
February 11th, 2013, 10:52 PM
#83
Registered User
Join Date: May 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 2,202
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.
It's all opinion and nothing more, so don't sweat what other people think too much.
A few car rags unanimously agreed on a certain definition and have pushed it ever since.
Others will tell you the 1949 Rocket 88 was the first muscle car, so you can see it's all opinion.
The 80's had A factory muscle car in the GNX Grand National.
The 90's had muscle cars in the LT1 and LS1 powered 4th gen F-body's and Cobra's.
The new Millenia has 650hp Shelby's, and 580hp ZL1 Camaro's, and the list goes on and on.
If you put a nice powerful 300hp+ V8 into that 77, it is a "Muscle" car.
Last edited by Aceshigh; February 11th, 2013 at 10:57 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
